he  Desecration  ^^Profanation 

g/'the 

Pennsylvania  Capitol 


r 

LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY  OF 
CAIIFORNIA 

SAN  OIEQO 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arciiive 

in  2007  witii  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcliive.org/details/desecrationprofaOOpenniala 


THE 

DESECRATION 

AND 

PROFANATION 

OF  THE 

PENNSYLVANIA  CAPITOL. 


WILLIAM   J.   CAMPBELL 

1623  Chestnut  Street 

PHILADELPHIA 


"Cursed  be  he  that  tnaketh  the  blind  to  zvan- 
der  out  of  the  way."  — Deut.  27 :  18. 


"Yea,  the  time  cotneth,  that  whosoever  kill- 
eth  you  will  think  that  he  doeth  God  service." 

— ^John  16:  2. 


"If,  when  ye  do  well,  and  suffer  for  it,  ye 
take  it  patiently,  this  is  acceptable  with  God" 

— I  Peter  2  :  20. 


"And  be  not  afraid  -of  their  terror,  neith-er 
be  troubled"  — I  Peter  3:14. 


Pennypacker's  Mills, 

Oct.  4,  191 1. 
To  the  People  of  Pennsylvania: 

In  the  city  of  Antwerp,  at  one  time  the 
leading  municipahty  of  the  world,  within  a  few 
hundred  yards  of  the  banks  of  the  Scheldt, 
stands  one  of  the  most  beautiful  and  imposing 
of  the  cathedrals  of  Europe.  From  every  civi- 
lized country  men  and  women  interested  in  the 
study  of  history,  of  theology  and  of  art  come 
to  view  its  proportions,  to  admire  its  architec- 
ture and  to  indicate  their  veneration  for  its 
associations.  A  spire  rising  from  the  roof 
bears  heavenward  the  symbol  of  suffering  hu- 
manity. Within  its  portals  hang  Ruben's 
"Descent  from  the  Cross,"  the  masterpiece  of 
this  artist  in  color,  and  Leonardo  da  Vinci's 
painting  of  the  "Head  of  Christ."  Without, 
against  the  very  walls,  the  nasty,  dirty,  vulgar 
Belgians  of  the  present  day  have  erected  their 
urinals  and  cloaca  in  full  view  of  every  visitor 
to  the  sacred  edifice. 

We  in  Pennsylvania  have  recently  been  giv- 
ing a  like  exhibition  of  ourselves.     We  have 
5 


treated  our  Capitol  after  the   same  fashion, 
with  a  similar  lack  of  decency  and  good  sense. 
For  four  years  I  have  waited  patiently  until 
the  Courts  should  finish  their  consideration  of 
the  cases  brought  before  them.     It  was  the 
only  proper  course  to  pursue.     It  would  have 
been  better  for  the  material  interests  and  the 
reputation  of  the  Commonwealth  if  others  had 
acted  with  the  same  sense  of  propriety.     I  now 
propose  to  speak.     It  is  my  duty.     Nor  do  I 
intend  to  assume  any  affectation  of  modesty. 
Between  you  and  me  in  this  matter  it  shall 
be  an  effort  only  to  reach  the  truth,  and  all 
other  motives  and  impulses  shall  be  disregard- 
ed.    I  do  not  ask  the  acceptance  of  any  state- 
ment herein  made  as  a  fact  unless  it  is  verified 
or  be  capable  of  verification  from  the  record, 
and  I  do  not  ask  you  to  be  influenced  by  any 
of  my  reasoning  unless  it  appeals  to  your  judg- 
ment, but  I  intend  that  those  both  now  and 
hereafter  who  care  to  be  informed,  and  to  be 
correct  in  their  conclusions,  shall  have  the  bene- 
fit of  such  information  as  I  possess  with  regard 
to  men  and  events  and  such  intelligence  as  I 
am  able  to  bring  to  the  subject.     I  claim  now 
the  right  to  be  heard. 

Without  any  request  or  suggestioii  of  mine 
you  elected  me  to  the  Governorship  of  Penn- 
sylvania by  the  largest  vote  ever  given  to  one 
6 


presented  for  that  office  either  before  or  since. 
I  am  entirely  conscious  of  the  fact,  and  you 
will  remember,  that  my  term  was  filled 
with  constructive  work  accomplished  for  the 
benefit  of  the  Commonwealth,  and  that  the 
standards  of  political  conduct  were  maintained 
at  so  high  a  plane  that  the  President  of  the 
United  States  held  forth  Pennsylvania  as  an 
example  for  all  of  the  States  to  follow.  Gov- 
ernor Robert  E.  Pattison  at  the  close  of  an 
attempt  to  have  the  State  apportioned  into 
senatorial  and  representative  districts  in  com- 
pliance with  the  requirements  of  the  Con- 
stitution, said  in  1883  in  a  message:  "I  have 
exhausted  all  my  powers  to  that  end  without 
avail,  and  confess  the  futility  of  my  efforts." 
The  State  was  so  apportioned  in  1906,  the 
first  time  this  mandate  had  been  obeyed  in 
thirty-two  years.  Mr.  Roosevelt  received 
much  credit  for  the  pjolicy  of  conserving  the 
forests  and  the  waters.  With  respect  to  the 
waters,  this  policy  had  its  origin  when  in  re- 
sponse to  a  message  from  me  the  Legislature 
of  Pennsylvania,  April  13,  1905,  took  away 
from  corporations  the  power  to  appropriate 
"the  streams,  rivers  and  waters,"  and  during 
my  term  the  forest  lands  of  the  State  were 
doubled.  Charles  E.  Hughes  received  great 
applause  over  the  country  and  was  appointed 
7 


to  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States 
because  he  endeavored  to  bring  about  in  New 
York  the  passage  of  the  legislation  which  had 
been  secured  here.  Unlike  Mr,  Hughes,  when 
I  was  tendered  the  nomination  to  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  State  I  did  not,  looking  to  my 
own  comfort,  abandon  the  Governorship  to 
which  you  had  called  me.  My  successor  did 
me  the  honor  to  conduct  the  affairs  of  his  ad- 
ministration with  the  officials  he  found  in 
charge  of  the  departments  at  Harrisburg.  The 
gentleman  appointed  to  the  United  States 
Senate  became  there  the  recognized  author- 
ity upon  questions  of  law,  and  now  sits  at 
the  head  of  the  Cabinet.  Pittsburgh  became 
a  greater  city.  Valley  Forge  became  a  source 
of  instruction  to  the  people  of  the  nation,  and 
on  the  outer  line  of  intrenchments  was  set  the 
bronze  statue  of  Anthony  Wayne.  The  move- 
ment for  good  roads  was  begun  and  three  hun- 
dred miles  in  stone  were  constructed.  Cor- 
porations were  not  permitted  to  be  organized 
unless  they  had  a  capital  stock  of  at  least 
$5,000.  By  the  act  of  May  8,  1905,  the  State 
began  the  policy  of  aiding,  deepening  and  im- 
proving the  channel  of  the  Delaware  river  by 
appropriating  $375,000  to  Philadelphia  for  this 
purpose.  Every  newspaper  now  prints  on  its 
editorial  page  the  names  of  those  responsible 
8 


for  its  management.  The  constabulary  was 
created  and  organized  upon  such  a  basis  tliat 
it  has  met  approval  everywhere,  and  moreover 
has  maintained  the  peace  as  never  before.  The 
most  efficient  department  of  health  in  the  Uni- 
ted States  was  established,  and  the  Capitol  was 
both  begun  and  completed.  Therefore  it  is 
that  I  demand  that  you  listen,  giving  such 
support  to  the  utterance  as  you  may  find  it 
to  deserve. 

W^hen  I  went  to  Harrisburg  in  obedience  to 
your  call  in  1903,  I  found  the  arrangements 
for  the  transaction  of  the  business  of  the  State, 
due  to  the  fact  that  the  old  Capitol  had  been 
destroyed  by  fire  some  years  before,  in  the 
most  unsatisfactory  condition.  Residences  and 
other  buildings  in  different  parts  of  the  town 
as  they  could  be  found  had  been  rented  at  con- 
siderable expense  and  adapted.  Most  of  the 
departments  were  housed  in  what  was  called 
the  old  shoe  building,  a  brick  structure  stand- 
ing in  a  manufacturing  neighborhood  within 
a  few  yards  of  and  running  alongside  of  the 
main  line  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad.  Here 
among  others  were  the  records  of  the  Interior 
Department,  with  its  evidences  of  the  titles  to 
the  lands  throughout  the  State.  They  could 
not  be  cared  for,  and  every  day  and  every 
night  they  ran  the  risk  of  destruction  by  fire. 
9 


Ever)'  time  the  fire  bell  rang  I  expected  to  hear 
that  the  old  shoe  building  with  its  contents 
had  at  last  succumbed.  If  you  expected  me 
to  be  content  that  this  condition  should  con- 
tinue, shifting  the  responsibility  for  providing 
a  remedy  over  to  some  successor,  or  if  you 
expected  me  to  participate  in  the  erection  of  a 
cheap  and  unworthy  public  building  out  of 
keeping  with  the  importance  of  the  Common- 
wealth, you  had  made  a  mistake  in  the  selec- 
tion of  your  Governor.  I  would  not  have 
done  either  of  those  things  then,  and  I  would 
not  do  either  of  them  now. 

A  Commission  had  been  appointed  for  the 
erection  of  a  new  Capitol,  an  architect  had 
been  selected,  and  a  contract  had  been  made 
covering  the  expenditure  of  $4,000,000.00.  A 
commonly  expressed  opinion  upon  the  street 
was  that  before  the  building  should  be  com- 
pleted twenty-five  years  in  time  and  twent}- 
five  millions  of  dollars  would  be  required.  This 
opinion  received  support  from  the  experience 
of  other  States  in  erecting  capitols,  and  of 
Philadelphia  in  erecting  her  City  Hall.  Al- 
though the  Commission  had  been  appointed  by 
my  predecessor,  I  assumed  responsibility  for 
them — that  is  to  say,  it  was  within  my  power 
as  Governor  to  have  removed  them  all,  at  least 
with  one  exception,  and  to  have  appointed 
10 


others  in  their  stead.  Like  every  other  Com- 
mission and  appointive  body,  it  was  subject 
to  the  control  of  the  Governor.  What  they  did, 
therefore,  was  done  under  my  authority  and 
with  my  assent.  There  was  much  futile  dis- 
cussion at  one  time  as  to  why  the  Commission 
permitted  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  to  do  anything  in  the  way  of  alter- 
ation. How  could  the  Commission  have  helped 
it,  if  the  Governor  chose  to  exert  his  author- 
ity? There  were  also  many  idle  editorials 
written  to  tell  you  that  it  had  been  expected 
that  the  structure  as  it  has  been  completed 
would  cost  but  $4,000,000.  Whoever  made 
that  statement  to  you  told  an  untruth.  The 
contract  and  the  specifications  were  both  print- 
ed in  full,  and  anybody  concerned  to  know 
could  have  seen  exactly  what  the  $4,000,000 
were  to  secure.  That  contract  made  provision 
for  the  bare  building  alone  and  none  for  light- 
ing, for  the  heat  regulation,  the  panelings  on 
the  walls,  the  fire-places  and  mantel-pieces,  the 
decorations  in  the  rooms  of  the  Senate  and 
House,  the  decorations  of  the  dome,  the  decor- 
ations in  the  other  rooms,  the  paintings  in  the 
corridors,  the  twenty-eight  subjects  to  be 
painted  by  Abbey,  and  none  for  the  furniture. 
If  nothing  more  had  been  done,  the  Governor, 
members  of  the  Legislature  and  officials  would 


have  had  to  trudge  through  the  mud  to  the 
building,  since  no  provision  had  been  made 
for  approaches  or  pavement.  When  they 
reached  it  they  could  have  done  no  work — they 
could  not  even  have  sat  down. 

The  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Build- 
ings consisted  of  the  Governor,  the  State  Trea- 
surer and  the  Auditor  General.  It  is  a  vicious 
arrangement,  since  the  Governor,  who  is  vested 
by  the  Constitution  with  supreme  executive 
power,  is  required  to  sit  upon  terms  of  equality 
of  action  with  two  other  officials  who  may  at 
any  time  outvote  him.  The  Governor  ought 
to  be  a  member  of  no  board  performing  duties 
of  the  State.  However,  the  system  had  been 
devised  by  the  wisdom  of  legislators,  had  been 
accepted  by  my  predecessors  and  had  long 
continued.  The  act  of  March  26,  1895,  directs 
that  this  Board  "shall  have  entire  control  and 
supervision  of  the  public  grounds  and  build- 
ings .  .  .  and  all  the  repairs,  alterations 
and  improvements  made  and  all  work  done 
or  expenses  incurred  in  and  about  such 
grounds  and  buildings,  including  the  furnish- 
ing and  refurnishing  the  same,"  and  they  "are 
authorized  to  enter  into  contracts  for  . 
furniture,  .  .  ,  repairs,  alterations  or  im- 
provements." The  power  thus  given  to  the 
Board  is  broad  and  absolute  in  its  scope  and 
12 


far  beyond  that  of  the  Building  Commission, 
which  was  Hmited  and  restricted  to  a  specific 
purpose.  Its  power  was  not  confined  to  small 
buildings  or  large  buildings,  but  extended  to 
all,  together  wath  the  public  grounds,  and  in- 
cluded the  authority  to  alter  and  improve.  To 
carry  into  effect  its  powers,  appropriations 
were  made  to  it  at  each  session  of  the  Legis- 
lature in  the  following  terms:  "The  State 
Treasurer  is  hereby  authorized  and  directed 
to  pay  out  of  any  moneys  not  otherwise  ap- 
propriated .  .  .  such  sums  as  may  be  re- 
quired by  contracts  made  in  pursuance  of  law 
which  shall  be  done  only  on  the 
written  orders  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners 
of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings." 

This  system  is  likewise  open  to  criticism. 
In  response  to  a  message  from  me  the  open 
end  of  the  sack  was  closed,  with  respect  to 
expenditure  for  bridges,  by  the  act  of  February 
15,  1906.  But  the  system  had  been  devised 
by  Governor  Pattison,  the  government  had 
been  conducted  in  accordance  with  it  for  nearly 
twenty  years,  numerous  structures  had  been 
erected  and  no  one  had  arisen  anywhere  to 
object.  The  general  appropriation  bill,  ap- 
proved July  18,  1 90 1,  contained,  however,  this 
provision:  "Provided  that  expenditures  al- 
lowed under  this  section  shall  not  be  so  con- 
13 


strued  as  to  authorize  the  Commissioners  of 
PubHc  Grounds  and  Buildings  to  complete  the 
present  Capitol  building,"  and  the  proviso  was 
retained  in  the  appropriation  bills  of  1903  and 
1905.  The  effect  of  this  proviso  is  difficult 
to  determine.  No  attempt  is  made  to  repeal 
the  power  of  the  Board,  and  in  fact  such  a 
result  could  not  be  accomplished  by  an  appro- 
priation bill.  The  power  to  improve,  alter, 
repair  and  furnish  is  left  as  it  was  under  the 
previous  legislation,  and  an  appropriation  for 
these  purposes  is  made  in  the  same  section, 
but  an  appropriation  to  ''complete"  the  Capitol 
is  withheld.  My  interpretation  of  the  lan- 
guage was  and  is  that  the  Legislature,  know- 
ing of  the  contract  for  the  erection  of  the 
building  and  having  made  provision  for  the 
sums  required  by  it,  intended  to  prevent  the 
Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings  from 
spending  moneys  for  the  completion  of  that 
contract  and  in  relief  of  the  Building  Com- 
mission. Such  a  provision  would  be  wise, 
and  this  is  an  interpretation  entirely  consistent 
with  a  retention  of  the  general  power  of  the 
Board.  As  in  much  of  our  legislation,  it  is 
necessary  to  grope  the  way  amid  conflicting 
statutes  to  ascertain  the  legislative  intent,  but 
the  testimony  given  for  the  defence  in  the 
various  trials  that  I  was  of  the  opinion,  and 

14 


gave  expression  to  it,  that  the  Board  had  the 
power  to  alter,  improve,  repair,  furnish  and 
equip  the  Capitol  building  was  correct.  I  ac- 
cept that  responsibility. 

The  members  of  the  Board  were  aware  of 
the  fact  that  the  next  session  of  the  Legisla- 
ture would  occur  in  January  of  1905,  and  that 
it  was  expected  of  them  that  the  Capitol  should 
be  in  readiness.  If  they  had  failed  to  meet 
the  responsibility  and  had  sought  to  excuse 
themselves  upon  the  ground  of  want  of  au- 
thority, those  who  have  been  so  ready  to  berate 
them  for  achievement  would  have  been  equally 
earnest  in  charging  incompetence.  But  what 
is  of  far  more  consequence,  they  would  have 
neglected  a  duty  imposed  upvon  them  by  the 
law.  Like  men,  they  accepted  the  responsi- 
bility. Even  if  they  had  been  disposed  to  lie 
down  and  shirk,  the  necessity  of  providing  ac- 
commodations for  five  new  departments  cre- 
ated after  the  making  of  the  contract  by  the 
Building  Commission,  to  wit.  Fisheries,  Mines, 
Health,  Highways  and  Constabulary,  would 
have  compelled  them  to  modify  and  magnify 
the  plans  for  the  building.  That  the  Legisla- 
ture made  tig  other  provision  for  these  depart- 
ments and  depended  upon  the  Board  to  ar- 
range for  them,  is  convincing  proof  that  my 
interpretation  of  the  legislation  is  correct. 
15 


Thus  Section  5  of  the  act  of  April  3,  1903, 
creating  the  Department  of  Fisheries,  directed : 
"The  Fisheries  Commission  shall  have  an  of- 
fice in  the  State  Capitol,  and  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Public 
Grounds  and  Buildings  to  provide  from  time 
to  time  the  necessary  rooms,  furniture,  appar- 
atus and  supplies."  Section  2  of  the  act  of 
April  15,  1903,  creating  the  Department  of 
Highways,  directed:  "The  State  Highway 
Department  shall  be  provided  with  suitable 
rooms  in  the  State  buildings  at  Harrisburg, 
and  its  offices  shall  be  open  at  all  reasonable 
times  for  the  transaction  of  public  business." 
Section  2  of  the  act  of  May  5,  1905,  creating 
the  Department  of  State  Police  directed :  "The 
Superintendent  of  State  Police  shall  be  pro- 
vided by  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  with  suitable  offices  at  the  Capitol 
in  Harrisburg" ;  and  the  other  two  depart- 
ments were  simply  left  to  the  care  of  the  Board 
by  the  Legislature  without  specific  directions. 
How  the  Board  was  to  obey  this  legislation 
without  doing  constructive  work  in  the  Capi- 
tol the  critics  have  been  too  careless  even  to 
consider. 

The  erection,   omamention  and  equipment 
of  the  Capitol  was  by  no  means  a  simple  and 
e€isy  task.     It  was  the    most    elaborate    and 
16 


complicated  constructive  work  ever  undertaken 
by  the  State.  In  the  nature  of  things  the 
men  in  charge  of  it  were  unprepared  by  special 
training,  and  the  resources  provided  for  ordi- 
nary and  routine  occasions  were  inadequate. 
Even  the  most  skilled  engineers  when  called 
upon  to  erect  a  bridge  over  the  St.  Lawrence 
at  Quebec  or  to  dig  a  canal  across  the  Isthmus 
of  Panama  cannot  rely  upon  formulas,  but 
have  to  feel  their  way.  Reasonable  persons 
would  expect  many  mistakes  and  imperfec- 
tions both  of  method  and  material,  and  if  they 
be  honest,  will  admit  that  expectation.  Most 
of  the  efforts  to  erect  capitols  in  this  country 
have  resulted  in  failures  both  in  design  and 
construction. 

The  equipment  involved  much  more  than 
that  which  has  been  ig^orantly  designated  as 
furniture.  For  over  half  a  century  the  records 
of  the  government  at  Harrisburg  had  been 
gradually  stolen  by  literary  thieves.  To-day 
not  an  autograph  sale  occurs  in  New  York 
which  does  not  contain  more  or  less  of  original 
papers  which  were  once  a  part  of  the  archives 
of  Pennsylvania.  Every  collector  of  experi- 
ence is  familiar  with  the  fact.  The  Board  with 
proper  foresight  determined  to  take  due  care 
for  the  future,  and  in  every  room  in  the  vast 
building  they  placed  metallic  cases  in  which 
17 


could  be  preserved  safe  from  abstraction,  mutil- 
ation and  fire,  the  records  of  the  departments. 
These  metallic  cases  are  not  furniture.  They 
are  the  tools  of  the  workmen,  the  engines  of 
the  power  house,  the  looms  of  the  mill,  the 
wagons  of  the  farmer,  the  gold  foil  of  the 
dentist.  The  task  confronting  the  builders 
was  not  that  of  keeping  a  set  of  books  such  as 
could  meet  the  scrutiny  and  approval  of  the 
Audit  Company  of  New  York,  or  that  of  mak- 
ing contracts  which  would  baffle  the  technical 
skill  of  a  Quarter  Sessions  lawyer.  It  was 
nothing  so  small,  limited  and  incidental. 
What  they  were  called  upon  to  do  was  to  erect 
and  adorn  a  building  ample  for  the  needs  of 
the  work  of  a  Commonwealth  of  eight  millions 
of  people,  in  so  substantial  a  manner  as  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  architectural  strength  and 
with  such  grace  as  to  satisfy  the  cultivated 
tastes  of  instructed  artists. 

The  financial  relation  of  the  Board  of  Pub- 
lic Grounds  and  Buildings  toward  the  Capitol 
was  entirely  different  from  that  of  the  Build- 
ing Commission.  The  latter  could  only  use 
$4,000,000,  the  former  were  only  limited  by 
the  balance  in  the  Treasury  of  the  State. 
While  the  members  of  the  Board  well  knew 
that  the  State  was  strong  enough  and  had 
sufficient  resources  to  justify  the  erection  of 
18 


a  building  in  every  way  worthy  and  credit- 
able, and  it  may  be  said  that  I  for  one  would 
have  assented  to  nothing  less,  they  likewise 
felt  and  appreciated  the  importance  of  using 
all  feasible  means  to  keep  the  expenses  within 
reasonable  limits.  You  have  never  been  per- 
mitted to  be  informed  as  to  the  pains  which 
were  taken  by  the  Board  in  this  respect.  All 
that  the  existing  legislation  required  was  that 
the  bills  should  be  certified  by  the  Superin- 
tendent and  should  be  approved  by  the  Board. 
At  the  outset  they  determined  that  the  work 
should  be  done  under  the  supervision  of  a 
competent  architect,  and  instead  of  selecting 
some  favorite  of  their  own,  they,  in  order 
that  there  might  be  unity  of  purpose  and  de- 
sign, placed  it  in  charge  of  the  architect  who 
had  been  chosen  by  the  Building  Commission 
and  had  planned  the  building.  They  com- 
pelled him  to  reduce  his  commissions  from  five 
per  cent.,  the  usual  compensation  allowed  to 
architects,  to  four  per  cent.,  much  to  his  dis- 
satisfaction. They  required  him  to  prepare 
plans  for  the  entire  work,  and  adopted  the 
resolution  offered  by  me  April  12,  1904,  that 
after  full  advertising  the  contract  should  be 
awarded  as  an  entirety  to  the  lowest  respon- 
sible bidder.  It  v/as  pointed  out  to  me  later 
that  this  plan  was  not  in  accord  with  the  pro- 
19 


visions  of  the  act  of  1895,  which  required 
schedule  advertising  and  purchases,  which  fact 
I  had  to  concede,  and  the  resolution  was  re- 
considered. It  is  only  another  illustration  of 
the  fact,  so  often  made  manifest,  that  restric- 
tions born  of  lack  of  confidence,  and  imposed 
upon  officials  charged  with  responsibility,  pro- 
duce in  practice  results  exactly  the  opposite  of 
those  intended.  Could  this  contract  have  been 
awarded  entire  for  a  lump  sum  we  should  have 
known  in  the  beginning  the  exact  amount  to 
be  expended  and  all  of  the  subsequent  trouble 
would  have  been  obviated.  The  Board  main- 
tained the  spirit  of  this  resolution  as  far  as  it 
was  practicable.  Since  the  law  required  that 
the  contract  should  be  awarded  by  schedule 
and  item,  they  determined  to  prepare  a  special 
schedule  to  contain  only  those  items  required 
for  the  new  Capitol.  The  object  was  to  attract 
the  attention  of  bidders  as  much  as  possible 
by  separating  it  from  the  bulky  general  sched- 
ule of  supplies.  The  law  required  advertise- 
ment in  twelve  newspapers.  They  inserted 
the  advertisement  in  fourteen  newspapers  and 
called  particular  attention  to  the  fact  that  it 
was  for  the  equipment  of  the  Capitol.  When 
the  bids  were  opened  it  was  found  that  upon 
all  of  the  forty-one  items,  except  upon  four, 
John  H.  Sanderson  was  the  lowest  bidder.    Af- 


ter  a  full  discussion  of  the  subject  the  Board 
awarded  the  contract  to  him  upon  all  of  the 
items. 

In  the  case  of  Clark  vs.  Pittsburg,  217  Pa.  51, 
the  Supreme  Court  said :  "If  each  item  of 
extra  work  should  be  awarded  to  a  separate 
bidder  the  confusion  to  follow  in  the  general 
work  may  be  well  imagined,  even  if  the  imagi- 
nation of  the  distinguished  counsel  for  appellee 
is  stretched  in  likening  it  in  his  brief  to  the 
confusion  of  tongues  that  occurred  in  the  con- 
struction of  the  tower  of  Babel."  The  mem- 
bers of  the  Board  were  impressed  with  the 
correctness  of  this  thought.  Individually  I  was 
well  pleased  that  Sanderson  had  secured  the 
contract.  I  had  never  met  him  in  my  life  until 
introduced  to  him  by  Mr.  Carson  on  the  day  the 
bids  were  opened,  and  never  had  had  any  rela- 
tions with  him  of  any  kind,  business,  social  or 
personal,  but  I  knew  that  he  had  successfully 
furnished  the  County  Court  House  in  Camden, 
and  that  he  had  the  reputation  in  Philadelphia 
of  making  the  best  of  furniture.  I  believed  his 
selection  meant  unusually  good  work,  and 
the  result  justified  this  belief.  Tiffany,  of 
New  York,  and  Wanamaker,  of  Philadelphia, 
through  their  agents,  had  for  a  week  or  ten 
days  been  going  over  the  work  and  the  plans, 
and  the  belief  of  the  Board  expressed  at  the 


time  was  that  Sanderson  had  been  forced  into 
making  a  proposition  advantageous  to  the  Com- 
monwealth. Since  the  actual  bidders  were  few, 
it  was  debated  whether  it  would  be  well  to  re- 
advertise,  and  the  conclusion  was  that  by  such 
a  course  we  would  be  rnore  likely  to  lose  than 
to  gain,  a  conclusion  in  which  I  concurred. 

Before  the  award  was  made  the  Board  sent 
for  the  architect  and  insisted  upon  his  giving 
in  a  general  way  his  estimate  of  the  probable 
cost  of  the  work  undertaken.  He  named  a 
sum  of  from  $500,000  to  $800,000,  and  the 
estimate  was  entered  on  the  minutes.  The 
Board  required  the  architect  to  make  a  set  of 
Quantities  Plans  and  a  Quantities  Book,  which 
gcive  a  description  of  each  piece  of  work  and 
article  of  furniture  and  its  location  in  the  build- 
ing. They  also  required  the  architect  to  cer- 
tify the  correctness  of  the  bills  before  they 
were  paid,  and  the  contractors  to  make  affi- 
davits to  the  same  effect.  The  only  one  of 
these  precautions  demanded  by  the  law  was 
the  certificate  of  the  Superintendent.  I  have 
pondered  over  the  matter  at  times  since  in  an 
effort  to  see  whether  there  was  anything  else 
which  could  have  been  done  better  to  safe- 
guard the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth,  and 
in  vain.  I  put  the  query  to  the  Investigation 
Commission  of  the  Legislature  when  I  appear- 


ed  before  them,  and  received  no  response.  I 
now  ask  each  of  you  whether  you,  with  all  the 
assistance  of  the  light  since  given,  looking  at 
the  problem  from  the  point  of  view  of  experi- 
ence and  not  of  forecast,  can  suggest  any  other 
precautions  that  could  have  been  taken. 

The  Capitol  was  erected,  furnished  and 
equipped.  It  was  all  done  within  the  compar- 
atively brief  period  of  four  years,  an  unparal- 
lelled  example  of  expedition  and  zeal  in  the 
public  behalf.  When  the  Legislature  met  in 
their  next  session  the  halls  of  the  Senate  and 
House  were  ready  for  their  use  and  there  was 
nothing  wanting  for  their  comfort.  When  the 
new  Governor  whom  you  had  elected  came  to 
Harrisburg  he  found  his  decorated  office  and 
beautiful  reception  room,  lined  with  the  paint- 
ings of  Violet  Oakley,  ready  for  his  occupancy. 
The  Attorney  General  sat  in  his  stately  apart- 
ments and  put  away  with  a  sense  of  absolute 
security  his  indictments  into  the  steel  cases 
which  had  been  prepared  for  him.  The  In- 
vestigation Commission,  upon  carved  chairs 
and  around  spacious  tables,  rested  at  ease  as 
they  wrote  their  condemnation  of  the  men  who 
had  seen  to  it  that  these  appliances  were  pro- 
vided. 

The  Capitol  contains  four  hundred  and  sev- 
enty-five rooms.     Unlike  the  Capitol  at  Wash- 

2Z 


ington,  it  provides  for  all  of  the  departments 
of  the  government.  It  is  five  hundred  and 
twenty  feet  long,  two  hundred  and  fifty-four 
feet  in  width,  two  hundred  and  seventy-two 
feet  in  height,  covers  two  acres  of  ground  and 
is  half  a  mile  in  circumference.  It  is  larger 
than  St.  Paul's  Cathedral,  for  building  which 
Sir  Christopher  Wren  was  knighted  by  a  grate- 
ful sovereign,  and  it  is  longer  than  Westminster 
Abbey.  The  weight  of  the  dome  is  fifty-two 
millions  of  pounds.  While  every  continent 
contributed  to  its  construction,  it  everywhere 
gives  expression  to  the  life,  the  thought  and 
the  achievement  of  this  Commonwealth.  The 
most  skilled  artists  in  the  world  devoted  their 
talent  to  its  adornment.  It  contains  the  finest 
bronze  work  in  America.  Around  the  dome 
are  these  citations  from  the  writings  of  Penn : 

"That  we  may  do  the  thing  that  is  truly 
wise  and  just." 

"That    an    example    may  be  set    up  to  the 
nations." 

"There  may  be  room  there  for  such  a  holy 
experiment." 

"For  the  nations  want  a  precedent." 

"And  my  God  will  make  it  the  seed  of  a 
nation." 

Said  Theodore  Roosevelt:    "Those  are  the 
most  magnificent   bronze   doors   I   have  ever 
24 


seen."  The  Hon.  George  W.  McCall,  of  Mas- 
sachusetts, recently  said  to  me :  "It  is  the  most 
beautiful  public  building  I  have  ever  seen." 
"Many  men  and  women  of  taste  and  experience 
have  described  it  as  the  finest  not  only  in 
America,  but  in  the  world.  A  traveller  from 
Europe  put  in  print:  "The  Capitol  which  in 
its  mass  of  granite  reigns  over  the  city  seems 
to  throw  a  shadow  of  power  and  richness  over 
everything.  The  outlines  equal  in  beauty  any 
of  the  beautiful  monuments  passing  into  pos- 
terity. .  .  .  But  the  Capitol  as  it  is  will 
remain  a  jewel  of  which  a  nation  may  be 
proud.  .  .  .  The  man  who  has  achieved 
and  executed  this  monument  is  a  genius." 

Most  of  such  works  heretofore  undertaken 
have  resulted  in  architectural  and  artistic  fail- 
ure, but  all  who  have  seen  the  Capitol  of 
Pennsylvania  are  impressed  with  its  beauty 
and  acknowledge  its  success.  Moreover,  both 
building  and  equipment  have  stood  the  test  of 
time.  It  has  now  been  in  the  use  of  the  un- 
friendly for  four  years,  another  year  is  rolling 
along,  and  no  man  arises  anywhere  to  say  that 
there  is  aught  wanting  or  imperfect. 

The  financial  part  of  the  problem  shows  such 
marvelous  results  that  nothing  can  explain  the 
lack  of  public  attention  to  it  except  an  inten- 
tion that  you,  the  people  of  the  State,  should 
25 


not  be  informed.  When  Massachusetts  erect- 
ed her  Capitol  she  borrowed  the  money  to  pay 
for  it.  When  New  York  erected  her  Capitol 
she  likewise  borrowed  the  money  to  cover  the 
expenditure.  Pennsylvania  borrowed  no 
money.  She  imposed  no  tax.  At  the  close  of 
the  fiscal  year  December  i,  1902,  before  the 
work  was  commenced,  the  balance  in  the  Trea- 
sury was   $12,868,806.34 

At  the  close  of  the  fiscal  year 
December  i,  1906,  after  the 
work  had  been  completed  and 
paid  for  the  balance  was $11,440,042.00 

In  the  meantime  the  five  departments  before 
referred  to  were  erected,  organized  and  equip- 
ped, the  county  bridges  which  had  been  washed 
away  across  the  Susquehanna  rebuilt,  the  for- 
estry reserves  doubled,  a  number  of  armories 
built  for  the  National  Guard,  and  the  debt  re- 
duced to  the  extent  of  $1,160,482.00.  The 
outcome  is  emphasized  by  the  events  of  later 
history.  It  might  well  have  been  expected 
that  with  the  cessation  of  this  extraordinary 
expenditure,  with  an  increase  of  revenue,  and 
with  nothing  new  in  the  way  of  department  or 
constnictive  work,  the  balance  in  the  treasury 
would  much  increase.  That  balance  December 
I,  1909,  had  fallen  to  $8,620,014.79. 

I  ask  of  you,  who  may  be  interested  and 
26 


who  care  for  the  reputation  of  your  State,  to 
scrutinize  the  annals  of  American  finance  and 
see  whether  you  can  find  anywhere  in  State 
or  nation  a  parallel  for  this  achievement.  So 
far  as  I  know,  it  has  never  been  equalled 
There  has  never  before  been  so  much  time 
given  to,  and  so  much  money  expended  upon, 
the  investigation  of  the  details  of  a  public  work 
as  in  the  case  of  this  Capitol,  and  it  has  seemed 
to  me  that  if  fairness  toward  men  were  not  a 
sufficient  motive,  curiosity  alone  ought  to  have 
led  some  investigator,  somewhere,  to  an  in- 
quiry as  to  how  it  was  possible  to  achieve  such 
a  financial  result.  The  time  has  now  come 
when  you  shall  be  informed. 

Dr.  William  P.  Snyder,  whom  you  elected 
Auditor  General,  was  an  exceptionally  capable 
and  efficient  public  official.  Appointed  by 
Governor  Stone  a  member  of  the  Building 
Commission,  and  being  also  a  member  of  the 
Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings,  the 
success  of  the  Capitol  was  largely  due  to  his 
efforts.  During  his  term  of  office  he  collected 
from  delinquent  corporations  taxes  part  of 
which  had  been  neglected  or  regarded  as  worth- 
less by  his  predecessors,  Democratic  and  Re- 
publican, some  of  them  as  remote  as  the  year 
1844,  amounting  to  the  sum  of  $5,818,159.87. 
He  is  no  political  friend  of  mine.  I  have 
27 


reason  to  believe  that  he  did  what  he  could 
in  Chester  county  to  prevent  my  nomination 
for  the  Governorship.  But  I  do  not  hesitate 
to  tell  you  this  fact  concerning  his  public 
service,  and  it  is  for  you  to  estimate  its  value. 
In  addition,  during  my  term  and  under  my 
direction  there  were  collected  from  the  Gov- 
ernment of  the  United  States  upon  claims 
arising  out  of  the  War  of  1812,  nearly  a 
century  ago,  and  out  of  the  War  of  the  Re- 
bellion, nearly  a  half  century  ago,  $1,238,- 
136.91.  All  of  the  moneys,  therefore,  which 
the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings 
expended  in  beautifying  and  equipping  your 
Capitol  were  dipped  up  as  it  were  out  of  the 
seas.  Do  you  really  think  they  did  very 
wrong  in  feeling  that  they  ought  so  to  invest 
them  ?  Remember  that  the  same  energy  which 
led  them  to  aid  in  building  a  Capitol  led  them 
to  gather  what  under  other  circumstances 
would  probably  have  been  lost. 

Not  only  was  the  Capitol  erected  and  equip- 
ped without  delay,  without  taxing  you  for  the 
purpose,  without  borrowing  money  or  materi- 
ally lessening  the  balance  in  the  treasuiy,  but 
it  may  be  safely  affirmed  that  it  was  done  at 
a  reasonable  cost.  The  architect  publicly  de- 
clared that  it  was  the  cheapest  building  of  its 
character  in  the  country,  and  he  gave  figures 
28 


to  prove  the  fact.  Since  no  one  undertook  to 
refute  the  statement  it  is  probably  correct. 
This  does  not  mean  that  no  mistakes  were 
made  or  that  there  were  not  instances  in  which 
articles,  if  they  had  stood  alone,  could  have 
been  bought  for  a  less  sum.  In  a  matter  of 
such  complication  and  difficulty  it  would  be 
remarkable  if  such  instances  did  not  occur. 
It  ought  to  be  remembered,  too,  that  for  a 
rival  contractor  to  say  on  the  street  or 
on  the  stand  that  if  he  had  secured  the  con- 
tract certain  articles  would  have  cost  the  Com- 
monwealth less  is  a  very  different  proposition 
from  making  a  bid  to  that  effect  on  which  he 
could  be  held  responsible.  Talk  and  opinion 
are  always  in  abundance  and  have  little  market 
value.  The  only  sensible  way  of  forming  a 
conclusion  as  to  whether  the  expenditure  is 
reasonable  or  otherwise  is  to  make  a  compari- 
son with  other  similar  work.  The  questions 
so  elaborately  presented  by  the  Legislative  In- 
vestigation Commission  and  in  the  Courts,  of 
the  difference  between  the  cost  and  charges 
for  a  specific  article  of  furniture  or  piece  of 
work  are  wide  of  the  mark,  for  the  reason  that 
they  leave  out  of  view  the  general  expenses 
connected  with  the  whole  undertaking. 

For  the  purpose  of  this  comparison  I  take 
the  figures  given  by  the  Investigation  Commis- 
29 


sion,  who  had  the  aid  of  the  Audit  Company 
of  New  York  at  an  expense  of  $28,001.40. 
They  gave  the  total  cost  of  the  construction  of 
the  building  as  $6,985,968.52.  Of  this  sum 
the  Building  Commission  expended  $3,970,- 
000.00,  and  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  $3,015,968,52.  In  an  effort  to  have 
the  sum  as  large  as  possible  the  Investigation 
Commission  made  the  mistake  of  including 
$303,693.14  expended  for  the  Highway  De- 
partment under  direction  of  the  act  of  April 
5,  1903,  after  the  contract  for  construction 
had  been  awarded ;  but  as  they  stand  these  fig- 
ures differ  widely  from  those  to  which  you 
have  grown  accustomed.  The  larger  sum  of 
which  you  have  heard  so  much — $13,159,- 
601.01 — is  only  reached  by  including  the  cost 
of  a  building  commenced  by  Governor  Hast- 
ings, in  1897,  the  furniture,  the  metallic  cases, 
the  temporary  arrangements  for  the  session  of 
1905  and  other  items,  and  is  about  as  accurate 
as  though  you  were  to  include  the  books  in 
your  library  and  your  wife's  fur  cloak  in  the 
cost  of  your  house.  I  estimate  the  entire  cost 
of  building,  furniture,  metal  cases  and  equip- 
ment at  $11,033,400.89.  I  am  not  an  expert 
and  do  not  assume  to  gfuarantee  these  figures 
as  absolute,  but  I  believe  them  to  be  more 
nearly  correct  than  any  others  which  have  been 
30 


published,  even  those  for  which  you  have  paid. 
The  result  is  reached  by  omitting  $550,000 
expended  upon  the  Hastings  building  and  by 
allowing  one-eighth  of  the  cost  for  the  five  de- 
partments created  after  the  contract. 

The  Capitol  at  Washington  contains  four 
hundred  and  twenty  rooms,  fifty-five  less  than 
the  Capitol  at  Harrisburg.  From  the  official 
reports  published  in  1901  it  had  cost  the  Na- 
tional Government  for  construction  alone 
$18,227,424.81. 

The  Capitol  of  Massachusetts,  about  one- 
half  the  size,  cost  for  construction  alone  $3,- 
477,226.00. 

The  Library  of  Congress,  the  only  building 
in  the  country  which  can  be  compared  with  the 
Capitol  in  artistic  merit,  with  2,039,582  cubic 
feet  of  contents  less,  cost  for  construction  alone 
$6,344,585.34. 

The  Capitol  of  New  York  cost  for  construc- 
tion, and  is  still  unfinished,  $24,265,382.01. 

The  City  Hall  in  Philadelphia  cost  for  con- 
struction alone  $18,243,339.86. 

The  depot  of  the  Pennsylvania  Railroad  in 
New  York,  with  tunnel  and  approaches,  cost 
for  construction,  $112,965,415.12, 

A  single  hotel  in  New  York  built  for  a  pri- 
vate corporation  about  the  same  time  actually 
31 


required  a  greater  outlay  than  the  Capitol  of 
Pennsylvania, 

Comparisons  with  some  buildings  nearer 
home  may  also  be  helpful  to  your  judg- 
ment. Alongside  of  the  Capitol  stands  the 
hall  of  the  Executive  Department,  built  by 
Governor  Pattison  at  a  cost  of  $500,000.00. 
A  squat,  two-story  stone  building,  covered  with 
plaster,  ornamented  with  imitation  marble  col- 
umns, in  the  same  proportion  the  massive  gran- 
ite Capitol  would  be  modest  at  $25,000,000.00. 
For  the  Eastern  Pennsylvania  State  Institution 
for  the  Feeble  Minded  and  Epileptic  at  Spring 
City,  there  have  been  expended  for  construc- 
tion $1,100,000.00,  and  for  the  Homoeopathic 
State  Hospital  for  the  Insane  at  Rittersville 
$1,903,750.00.  Each  of  these  is  but  a  hospital 
and  neither  has  been  completed.  The  Girard 
Trust  Building  at  the  corner  of  Broad  and 
Chestnut  Streets,  in  Philadelphia,  the  dimen- 
sions of  which  are  only  137  feet  by  134  feet 
II  inches,  cost,  without  the  ground,  for  con- 
struction and  furniture,  $1,541,236.26. 

Compared  with  any  one  or  all  of  these  struc- 
tures erected  in  different  parts  of  the  country 
and  at  home,  is  it  not  fair  to  claim  that  the 
expenditure  upon  the  Capitol  was  reasonable? 

I  have  described  to  you  what  was  accom- 
plished for  your  welfare  by  the  members  of 
32 


the  Building-  Commission  and  the  Board  of 
Public  Grounds  and  Buildings,  and  I  now  pro- 
pose to  say  a  few  words  about  them  as  indi- 
viduals. It  has  been  the  fortune  of  my  life 
to  have  been  brought  into  contact  with  men 
in  all  classes  of  society,  from  Presidents  of 
the  United  States  and  Judges  of  the  Courts, 
down  to  those  confined  in  the  dock  charged 
with  crime,  and  to  have  been  required  to  study 
their  characters  and  judge  of  the  probabilities 
of  what  the  latter  had  to  tell.  You  threw  me 
among  the  men  who  builded  the  Capitol.  I 
saw  them  at  their  work  and  I  shall  give  you 
my  judgment.  One  and  all  I  believe  them  to 
have  been  impelled  by  an  earnest  desire  so  to 
perform  their  task  that  it  would  be  creditable 
alike  to  themselves  and  to  the  Commonwealth. 
It  is  said  that  Governor  Stone  described  Hus- 
ton, the  architect,  as  a  dreamer.  I  think  that 
characterization  is  in  part  correct.  What  was 
needed  in  his  position  was  not  a  bookkeeper 
or  the  cashier  of  a  bank,  but  an  artist  and  poet, 
with  imagination  enough  to  design,  with  en- 
thusiasm enough  to  carry  his  inspirations  into 
execution,  and  with  none  too  keen  an  appre- 
ciation of  the  importance  of  mere  money.  If 
the  building  had  been  erected  by  the  Audit 
Company  of  New  York,  it  would  have  been 
exact  no  doubt,  but  little  else.  The  builders, 
33 


each  of  them,  expected  that  if  they  should  suc- 
ceed in  erecting  a  Capitol  adequate  for  the 
needs  of  the  government,  substantial  in  its 
material,  tasteful  in  its  art,  and  should  complete 
the  work  with  promptness,  it  would  meet  with 
your  appreciation  and  to  them  would  be  ac- 
corded the  meed  of  your  praise.  They  were 
entitled  to  entertain  that  expectation.  No 
man  can  with  truth  deny  that  the  Capitol  meets 
all  of  those  requirements.  Instead,  however, 
of  receiving  the  commendation  they  properly 
anticipated,  they  were  confronted  and  some  of 
them  overwhelmed  by  a  display  of  propensities 
at  once  both  mean  and  ignoble.  Another  set 
of  men  came  into  the  exercise  of  the  powers 
of  the  government,  and  during  the  next  four 
years  the  Capitol,  thanklessly  accepted  with 
all  of  its  conveniences  and  facilities,  was  utterly 
lost  sight  of  amid  outcries  over  the  moneys 
which  had  been  expended.  There  was  no  ad- 
miration of  strength,  there  was  no  recognition 
of  beauty,  there  was  no  appreciation  of  art, 
there  was  no  sense  that  the  soul  of  Pennsyl- 
vania had  found  expression  in  a  wonderful 
production,  and  no  utterance  of  any  sentiment 
or  feeling  in  connection  with  it  except  that  of 
the  sordid  love  of  money.  And  every  man  of 
them,  who  joined  in  these  cries,  was  well  aware 
all  of  the  time  that  he  had  not  contributed  and 
34 


had  not  been  called  upon  to  contribute  any- 
thing of  his  substance  towards  its  erection. 
In  the  words  of  Schiller :  "Mit  der  Dummheit 
kiimpffen  Gotter  selbst  verg-ebens." 

Buildings  as  well  as  men  have  their  fortunes 
and  misfortunes.  The  Capitol  was  in  several 
respects  adventitiously  unfortunate.  In  the 
first  place  Senator  Quay  had  recently  died. 
In  a  way  it  was  the  final  expression  of  the 
power  he  had  so  long  wielded  in  the  affairs 
of  the  Commonwealth.  In  every  county  were 
men  whom  he  had  defeated  in  political  com- 
bats who,  not  daring  to  confront  him  longer 
while  he  was  alive,  were  ready  nevertheless, 
now  that  he  was  dead,  to  indicate  their  unhap- 
piness  over  the  merits  of  any  work  which 
might  perhaps  be  associated  with  his  career. 
In  the  second  place,  the  Capitol  was  completed 
at  a  time  when  there  was  a  spirit  prevalent 
over  the  entire  land  which  made  an  attack  upon 
it,  as  upon  every  other  important  work,  in- 
evitable. Men  in  high  places  had  secured  a 
temporary  but  pronounced  popularity  by  as- 
sailing business  interests  and  private  property, 
and  their  lesser  imitators  arose  in  every  com- 
munity seeking  this  kind  of  factitious  repu- 
tation. In  the  general  boiling  and  overrunning 
of  the  pot,  Pennsylvania  could  hardly  hope  to 
escape  some  scars. 

35 


In  the  third  place,  just  as  the  work  was  fin- 
ished, by  one  of  those  freaks  of  ill  fortune 
which  come  to  spoil  the  campaigns  of  the 
ablest  of  generals,  a  Democrat  from  Illinois 
was  elected  to  the  position  of  State  Treasurer 
and  became  a  member  of  the  Board  of  Public 
Grounds  and  Buildings.  The  time  has  now 
come  when  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  include 
in  this  narration  the  characterization  of  an  in- 
dividual, and  I  shall  endeavor  to  be  as  fair 
to  him  as  the  truth  will  permit.  No  man 
can  understand  the  French  Revolution  unless 
he  has  some  measure  of  the  mental  and  moral 
qualities  of  the  Jacobins.  The  attack  upon  the 
Capitol  was  the  work  of  William  H.  Berry, 
and  whatever  of  credit  or  discredit  may  come  of 
it  belongs  to  him,  and  ought  to  be  accorded 
to  him.  The  crop  which  was  later  gathered 
by  legislators,  lawyers,  newspapers  and  poli- 
ticians came  from  the  seed  of  his  sowing. 
No  such  shallow  devices  as  his  exclusion  from 
the  counsels  of  the  Investigation  Commission, 
and  from  the  witness  stand  in  the  Courts, 
can  deprive  him  of  the  honors  which  are 
justly  and  almost  exclusively  his  own.  He  was 
no  ordinary  Democrat,  such  as  grow  to  ma- 
turity upon  the  farms  around  Reading  and 
Allentown.  Without  intelligent  comprehension 
of  affairs,  without  broad  reading  or  culti- 
36 


vation,  without  thorough  information  upon 
any  subject,  he  was  nevertheless  fluent  and 
ready  to  instruct  the  world.  Without  finan- 
cial capacity  to  manage  his  own  business  in 
such  a  way  as  to  attain  success,  he  had  been 
called  to  take  charge  of  revenues  amounting  to 
$25,000,000.00  annually.  He  contended  that 
the  country  can  be  enriched  by  the  unlimited 
issue  of  paper  money.  He  was  sufficient  of 
a  reformer  to  turn  out  the  trained  clerks  in 
his  department  and  put  his  friends  in  their 
places.  He  was  sufficient  of  a  moralist  to  put 
the  State  funds  in  a  trust  company  from  which 
he  could  get  a  loan  upon  his  brickyard.  He 
was  nevertheless  genial  and  affable,  and  sought 
the  aid  and  experience  of  Dr.  Snyder,  in  keep- 
ing his  records,  with  all  the  warmth  of  good 
fellowship.  I  believe  that  he  did  not  really  in- 
tend to  do  any  great  harm,  and  that  his  main 
purpose  was  to  help  the  Lord  in  an  effort  to 
place  a  suitable  incumbent  in  the  Governorship 
or  the  Vice-Presidency. 

In  the  fourth  place,  and  most  important  of 
all,  the  Legislature  which  was  to  follow  would 
elect  a  United  States  Senator  to  succeed  Sena- 
tor Penrose,  and  if  Stuart,  who  had  been 
nominated  for  the  Governorship,  could  be  de- 
feated, Penrose  as  the  leader  of  the  Republican 
party  in  the  State  would  be  overthrown. 
37 


Penrose  had  just  come  into  control  of  the 
organization  of  the  party,  and  his  hold  upon 
it  was  by  no  means  assured.  The  blow  at  the 
Capitol  was  in  reality  directed  at  him.  In  the 
campaign  which  followed  Berry  became  the 
apostle,  the  newspapers  constituted  the  cohorts, 
and  the  object  sought  to  be  secured  was  the 
control  of  a  great  Commonwealth.  The  beau- 
ties and  expenses  of  the  Capitol,  the  candidacy 
of  Stuart,  and  the  fate  of  Snyder  were  only 
incidents  which  marked  the  course  of  the  con- 
test. 

The  attack  opened  up  over  a  very  trivial 
matter.  The  great  bronze  doors,  the  most  im- 
pressive in  America,  were  ornamented  with  a 
number  of  human  heads,  each  of  them  rather 
larger  than  a  walnut  and  smaller  than  a  base- 
ball. Ingenuity  can  discover  among  them  the 
faces  of  Dickens,  Grant,  Shakespeare  and  the 
death  mask  of  Napoleon.  A  like  ingenuity 
did  discover  a  resemblance  to  certain  officials 
and  men  active  in  affairs,  and  for  weeks  these 
little  heads  were  the  only  material  available 
and  were  made  to  do  full  duty.  With  the  ad- 
vent of  Berry  they  were  abandoned,  the  scope 
was  widened,  and  the  winds  were  let  loose. 
Everything  that  irresponsible  and  disciplined 
guile  cotild  originate  in  an  effort  to  belittle 
the  achievement  and  to  increase  the  expense 
38 


was  published  broadcast.  The  figures  were 
perverted.  Double-leaded  editorials  were  put 
forth  day  after  day  condemning  the  secrecy 
with  which  the  work  had  been  undertaken,  in 
newspapers  whose  own  affidavits  to  the  cor- 
rectness of  their  receipted  bills  for  advertising 
it,  lay  in  the  Treasury,  and  although  during 
its  progress  the  representatives  of  the  entire 
press  had  come  to  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds 
and  Buildings  and  prevailed  on  them  to  change 
the  arrangements  for  correspondents  in  the 
Senate  and  House.  Berry,  instead  of  attend- 
ing to  the  duties  of  his  office,  went  around  the 
State  brandishing  the  leg  of  a  chair  which  he 
had  secured  somehow,  somewhere,  and  talked 
violently  about  imposture,  although  when  the 
cases  came  later  to  be  tried  counsel  conceded 
of  record  that  the  material  and  labor  were  in 
every  way  in  accord  with  the  specifications  of 
the  contract.  On  one  occasion  while  Berry 
was  out  on  the  stump  assailing  his  colleagues 
who  were  in  Harrisburg  attending  to  the  busi- 
ness of  the  State,  a  bill  was  presented  to  the 
Board  charging  $850  for  the  erection  of  a  flag- 
pole. This  pole  was  erected  because  James  M. 
Lamberton,  Esq.,  had  called  our  attention  to  a 
statute  requiring  it.  The  erection  of  this  pole 
made  it  necessary  to  cut  through  the  stone  roof 
of  the  Capitol,  an  interference  with  the  con- 
39 


tract  of  guarantee  of  permanence  and  imper- 
viousness.  The  pole  had  to  be  both  substan- 
tial and  safe.  Nevertheless  I  thought  the  bill 
too  large,  in  which  I  had  the  support  of  Sny- 
der, and  we  stopped  its  payment.  A  couple 
of  weeks  later  Berry  returned  on  a  vacation 
from  his  political  toil  and  I  asked  him  what 
he  thought  ought  to  be  paid  for  the  pole.  He 
said  he  could  get  one  for  $150.00,  a  statement 
which  was  not  correct.  The  next  morning 
far  and  wide  the  newspapers  proclaimed  how 
Berry  had  prevented  the  payment  for  the  pole, 
and  it  furnished  many  a  headline  for  the  cam- 
paign. After  the  election  we  all  three  united 
in  ordering  $600  to  be  paid  for  it.  Its  only 
importance  now  is  that  it  furnishes  you  an 
illustration  of  what  was  going  on  at  the  time. 
The  real  accusation,  however,  dinned  into 
your  ears  in  every  possible  form  of  assertion 
and  innuendo  was  that  of  graft;  that  is,  that 
the  officials  having  control  of  the  work  made 
money  for  themselves  by  a  combination  with 
the  contractors.  We  met  this  storm  right 
squarely  in  the  face.  With  its  earliest  mur- 
murings  Snyder  and  I  published  a  statement 
showing  every  cent  which  had  been  expended 
by  ourselves  and  others  in  each  and  every  way 
in  connection  with  the  building  and  equipment 
of  the  Capitol.  That  put  you  in  possession  of 
40 


the  actual  facts.  The  result  was  that  all  pos- 
sible changes  were  rung  over  the  figures,  and 
the  manliness  and  integrity  of  the  act  were 
ignored.  Then  we  invited  Charles  Emory- 
Smith,  the  editor  of  The  Press;  George  W. 
Ochs,  the  proprietor  of  The  Ledger,  and 
Charles  H.  Heustis,  the  editor  of  The  Inquirer, 
three  leading  Philadelphia  newspapers,  to  come 
up  and  examine  the  building  and  books  of 
account.  They  were  willing  enough  to  deal  in 
adjectives,  adverbs  and  generalities,  but  had  a 
reluctance  to  confront  facts,  and  they  declined. 
Then  I  made  arrangements  with  the  railroads 
for  cheap  excursion  rates  of  fare  and  invited 
you  to  come  and  see  for  yourselves.  Sixty 
thousand  of  you  came.  I  shook  hands  with 
ten  thousand  upon  one  Saturday,  and  they 
went  home  like  missionaries,  telling  their 
neighbors  of  the  wonders  of  the  building  they 
had  inspected.  The  result  of  this  bold  and 
straightforward  course  was  that  Stuart  was 
saved  from  defeat,  Penrose  was  saved  from 
destruction,  and  I  had  the  intense  personal  sat- 
isfaction of  knowing  that  the  main  object 
sought  to  be  accomplished  by  the  cultivation 
of  scandal  had  been  thwarted. 

It  is  hard  to  kick  against  the  pricks,  it  is 
difficult  to  tell  a  story  in  conflict  with  the  truth 
which  is  mighty  and  in  the  end  prevails,  for 
41 


the  stars  in  their  courses  fight  for  its  disclosure. 
Some  quite  recent  developments  give  us  a 
glimpse  of  the  machinery  which  directed  this 
scandal.  At  that  time  James  M.  Guffey,  who 
had  made  an  immense  fortune  in  oil,  was  the 
leader  or  boss  of  the  Democratic  party  in  the 
State.  In  1910  through  some  unlucky  turn 
of  affairs  he  went  into  bankruptcy.  Among 
his  assets  his  assignee  found  a  note  to  his  order 
for  $15,000,  given  in  1906  by  William  H. 
Berry,  long  overdue  and  unpaid.  It  was  prob- 
ably understood  between  them  that  it  was  not 
intended  to  be  a  real  financial  obligation.  At 
all  events,  Berry  made  no  effort  to  pay  it  and 
Guffey  made  no  effort  to  collect  it.  Berry 
acted  as  though  he  felt  under  no  obligation, 
because  in  a  convention  of  his  party  he  aided 
in  an  effort  to  oust  Guffey  from  party  leader- 
ship, and  the  only  possible  inference  from  their 
conduct  is  that  both  felt  that  Guffey  had  re- 
ceived consideration  for  his  money.  In  the 
stress  of  the  political  campaign  of  19 10  Berry 
in  a  published  statement  gave  this  explanation : 
"During  my  incumbency  as  Treasurer  I  was 
subject  to  extraordinary  expense  in  exposing 
the  Capitol  steal.  ...  I  accepted  the 
financial  help  of  several  Democrats,  each  with- 
out the  knowledge  of  the  others,  and  among 
them  Mr.  Guffey."  Probably  each  of  them 
42 


would  have  been  disappointed  to  learn  that 
what  he  had  believed  to  be  his  own  monopo- 
listic venture  was  in  reality  a  joint  operation, 
and  therefore,  in  the  goodness  of  his  heart, 
Berry  did  not  inform  any  of  them  of  what  the 
others  had  done. 

Since  charges  had  been  made  and  circulated 
in  sensational  fashion  all  over  the  United 
States,  to  the  great  delight  of  your  enemies 
and  rivals  and  those  of  the  Commonwealth,  it 
was  generally  felt  that  they  ought  to  be  ser- 
iously examined,  and  in  my  final  message  I 
recommended  an  official  investigation.  The 
Attorney  General,  the  Hon.  Hampton  L.  Car- 
son, undertook  such  an  inquiry.  Of  all  men 
in  public  life  he  was  probably  the  best  fitted 
by  personal  qualifications  and  previous  train- 
ing for  the  performance  of  such  a  duty.  Keen 
in  intellect  and  one  of  the  purest  hearted  men 
ever  born,  a  scholar  of  wide  attainments,  his 
fame  as  a  lawyer  had  extended  over  the  whole 
country,  and  the  mere  fact  that  he  was  willing 
to  accept  the  office  of  Attorney  General  was 
an  honor  and  assurance  to  you.  Moreover  he 
had  written  the  leading  book  upon  the  sub- 
ject of  conspiracies,  accepted  by  lawyers  as  an 
authority,  and  was  therefore  an  especially  dis- 
ciplined expert.  He  examined  the  contracts, 
papers  and  parties,  having  the  advantage  of 
43 


the  statements  of  Berry  and  Sanderson  which 
the  Investigation  Commission  failed  to  secure, 
and  he  made  a  complete  and  voluminous  re- 
port, consisting  of  three  hundred  and  seventy- 
nine  printed  pages,  in  which  he  reached  the 
conclusion  from  the  evidence  submitted :  "I 
do  not  hesitate  to  say  that  in  my  judgment 
there  is  no  trace  of  crime.  No  conspiracy  is 
disclosed  between  State  officers  to  share  in  the 
profits  of  the  contracts ;  nor  between  the  archi- 
tect and  the  contractors ;  nor  to  secure  the  con- 
tracts for  the  contractors;  nor  to  shape  the 
schedules  in  such  a  way  as  to  mislead  bidders ; 
nor  to  deter  bidders  in  order  to  stifle  compe- 
tition." 

The  effect  of  the  conscientious  and  laborious 
attempt  to  work  out  a  correct  result  by  a  com- 
petent person  was  to  cause  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral to  be  included  in  the  abuse.  An  accurate 
ascertainment  of  facts  and  a  just  conclusion 
from  them  were  not  at  all  what  the  occasion 
demanded.  A  new  administration  came  into 
power  which  had  felt  the  weight  of  a  storm 
before  it  grasped  the  reins.  A  new  Legisla- 
ture occupied  the  beautiful  rooms  of  the  Sen- 
ate and  House,  and  the  situation  was  surround- 
ed with  temptations  for  those  whose  aspira- 
tions looked  to  the  future. 

Upon  the  meeting  of  the  Legislature  a  com- 
44 


mission,  consisting  of  three  members  of  the 
Senate  and  four  Members  of  the  House,  was 
appointed  "to  make  a  full  investigation  of  all 
the  circumstances  and  transactions  connected 
with  the  erection,  construction  and  furnishing 
of  the  State  Capitol." 

The  Commission  as  appointed  consisted  of 
Senators  John  S.  Fisher,  A.  E.  Sisson  and 
Arthur  G.  Dewalt,  and  Representatives  R.  W. 
Fair,  Moses  Shields,  R.  Scott  Ammerman  and 
Robert  Dearden.  I  give  their  names  because 
in  this  matter  each  individual  ought  to  bear 
his  own  share  of  responsibility  and  receive  the 
commendation  or  opprobrium  which  belongs 
to  him.  Certainly  it  may  be  conceded  that  sel- 
dom in  human  affairs  have  men  been  charged 
Avith  greater  responsibility.  An  important 
work  had  been  accomplished  and  upon  the 
wisdom  of  their  conclusions  temporarily  de- 
pended the  question  whether  it  should  meet 
with  credit  or  discredit.  The  good  fame  of 
the  Commonwealth  was  for  the  time  entrusted 
to  them.  The  fate  of  officials  whose  daily 
lives  they  had  seen  for  years,  of  Snyder  whom 
time  and  again  they  had  called  upon  to  pre- 
side over  the  Senate,  rested  in  their  hands. 
Oh!  the  pity  of  it  that  in  the  performance  of 
their  task  they  could  not  have  been  inspired 
with  some  of  that  earnestness  of  purpose  and 
45 


zeal  for  your  welfare  displayed  by  the  builders 
and  decorators,  that  they  could  not  have  arisen 
above  the  mephitic  airs  that  surrounded  them! 
Their  report  will  be  found  upon  page  4170  of 
the  Legislative  Record,  Vol,  III,  for  1909. 
From  this  report  it  is  plain  that  they  started 
out  with  an  entirely  incorrect  conception  of 
their  duty.  They  state  it  as  follows :  "The 
questions  for  the  determination  of  the  Com- 
mission were  fraud  and  dishonesty  in  the  mak- 
ing of  the  contracts,  and  the  performance  of 
them."  No  such  questions  were  submitted  to 
them.  They  were  nowhere  instructed  to  de- 
termine fraud  and  dishonesty.  The  resolution 
of  January  28,  1907,  directs  them  "to  make  a 
full  investigation  of  the  circumstances  and 
transactions,"  and  the  Act  of  April  23,  1907, 
appropriates  to  them  the  large  sum  of  $100,- 
000  for  the  purpose  "of  inquiry."  If  this  in- 
quiry disclosed  innocence,  zeal  and  success, 
then  it  was  their  duty  so  to  report  instead  of 
determining  fraud  and  dishonesty.  It  may  be 
said  that  their  statement  was  made  inadver- 
tently, which  is  probably  true,  but  this  inad- 
vertence is  important  since  it  unwittingly  dis- 
closes the  attitude  of  mind  with  which  they 
approached  the  inquiry.  Berry  and  the  news- 
papers had  told  them  there  was  fraud,  and  their 
understanding  of  the  resolution  was  that  they 
46 


were  so  to  find.  This  is  further  shown  when 
at  the  very  outset  they  hasten  to  say:  ''The 
Commission  is  also  indebted  to  the  press  of  the 
State  for  timely  assistance  and  information." 
Could  anything  be  more  improper  and  undig- 
nified or  show  a  sadder  lack  of  appreciation 
of  the  exalted  position  they  occupied  as  the 
representatives  of  the  Commonwealth  in  a  ser- 
ious examination  of  a  complicated  situation? 
If  of  course  a  gentleman  connected  with  some 
journal  had  testified  concerning  a  fact  known 
to  him  alone  he  might  well  be  thanked.  It  was 
not  that  case.  The  thanks  are  given  to  the 
press  at  large  throughout  the  State.  The  edi- 
tors of  three  leading  journals  had  declined 
to  examine  the  Capitol  when  invited,  and  it 
is  not  likely  that  they  had  any  facts  to  impart. 
It  would  be  interesting  to  know  how  this  in- 
formation was  conveyed.  No  one  of  these 
gentlemen  appeared  on  the  witness-stand.  In- 
formation imparted  in  secret  and  without  re- 
sponsibility is  not  to  be  trusted,  and  to  the 
extent  that  this  report  is  based  upon  such  in- 
formation it  is  unreliable.  The  assistance 
given,  which  we  are  assured  was  timely,  had 
been  in  the  way  of  intimidating  possible 
witnesses  and  jurymen,  arousing  among  the 
people  animosity  toward  the  contractors,  pre- 
venting an  unprejudiced  investigation  and  in- 
47 


dicating  support  to  any  adverse  report.  These 
thanks  are  an  evidence  that  the  members  of  the 
Investigation  Commission  had  abdicated,  for- 
gotten their  functions,  and  taken  their  places  as 
partisans  and  assailants.  It  is^very  much  as 
though  a  grand  jury  had  thanked  a  mob  of 
lynchers  for  aiding  them  in  disposing  of  the 
case.  As  might  well  be  anticipated  from  this 
auspicious  beginning,  the  report  in  every  aspect 
of  it  exhibits  a  lack  of  coherent  thinking 
and  announces  inaccurate  conclusions  with  re- 
spect to  almost  every  topic  considered.  Let 
me  illustrate  by  citations  from  it  so  that  you 
may  understand  the  ground  upon  which  this 
uncomplimentary  averment  is  made.  One  of 
the  subjects  for  their  condemnation  and  one 
of  the  frauds  they  discovered  was  in  connec- 
tion with  the  attic  contract.  Of  this  contract 
they  say:  "What  is  referred  to  as  the  attic 
contract  embraced  a  series  of  changes  of  room 
arrangements  on  the  fourth  (fifth?)  floor,  and 
provided  rooms  and  equipment  on  the  attic 
floor  for  new  departments  of  the  government." 
After  discussing  the  matter  they  find  that  the 
expenditures  for  this  purpose  "were  illegal  and 
unauthorized,"  and  further  "that  the  parties 
to  this  fraud  are  amenable  to  law  and  should 
be  held."  In  their  general  findings  they  return 
to  the  subject  and  after  condemning  the  Board 
48 


of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings  for  doing 
this  work  blame  the  Building  Commission  for 
permitting  the  Board  "to  interfere  with  its 
contract  and  duties  and  to  add  to  the  construc- 
tion work  of  the  new  Capitol  building."  When 
they  made  that  finding  they  had  entirely  over- 
looked and  forgotten  the  Acts  of  April  2,  1903, 
April  15,  1903,  and  May  5,  1905,  which  speci- 
fically authorized  and  required  the  Board  to 
do  that  very  thing,  although  as  to  some  of 
them  they  themselves  had  individually  voted 
for  these  acts. 

No  doubt  this  is  nothing  worse  than  a  blun- 
der due  to  imperfect  investigation,  but  what 
confidence  can  be  placed  in  the  other  conclu- 
sions of  men  who  recommend  a  prosecution 
based  upon  no  better  foundation  than  their 
failure  to  observe  a  fact  so  obvious  as  the  ex- 
istence of  statutes  they  themselves  helped  to 
frame?  Suppose  some  Berry,  anxious  for 
preferment,  supported  financially  by  political 
forces,  and  incited  by  newspapers  eager  to  sell 
sensations,  had  charged  that  they  conspired  so 
to  report  and  they  had  been  brought  before  a 
jury  and  confronted  with  the  statutes,  what 
could  they  have  answered? 

In  their  report  they  go  so  far  as  to  assume 
the  role  of  prophets  and  visit  their  condemna- 
tion upon   action   which  was  not  taken,  but 

49 


which  in  their  opinion  would  have  been  taken 
had  events  been  otherwise  than  they  were. 
Thus  they  say:  "But  there  can  be  Httlc  doubt 
that  if  the  other  bids  had  been  considered  the 
bid  of  Sanderson  would  have  been  changed  of 
record  to  meet  requirements."  What  do  you 
citizens  think  of  that  utterance  as  a  manifes- 
tation of  dignity,  fairness  and  justice?  If  I 
may  be  permitted  a  like  privilege,  then  I  de- 
clare my  conviction  that  the  method  pursued 
by  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings 
not  only  prevented  the  Capitol  from  being 
ruined  by  the  diverse  fancies  of  successive  leg- 
islative committees,  but  also  saved  the  expen- 
diture of  $12,000,000.00. 

Another  matter  of  the  same  kind  is  a  gran- 
ite wall  around  the  park,  to  which  they  give 
prolonged  attention.  There  is  no  such  wall. 
None  was  ever  built,  and  no  money  was  ever 
expended  on  it.  Their  finding  upon  this  sub- 
ject is:  "This  contract  was  actually  awarded, 
reconsidered  and  postponed,  rea warded  and 
finally  suffered  to  die  owing  to  a  vigorous  pro- 
test by  citizens  of  Harrisburg  which  could  not 
be  silenced."  What  difference  does  it  make 
what  was  the  reason  of  the  Board  for  not 
doing  this  work  if  as  a  matter  of  fact  it  was 
not  done?  However,  they  are  utterly  mis- 
taken.   No  contract  was  ever  made.    No  con- 


tract  could  be  made  without  my  signature. 
Believing  that  this  contract  could  not  be  made 
under  the  head  of  "Repairs"  under  the  Sched- 
ule, and  there  being  no  other  item  to  cover  it, 
I  refused  to  enter  into  the  contract.  The  ori- 
ginal papers  on  file  will  show  this  situation  of 
affairs  with  the  absence  of  my  signature,  and 
I  presume  the  Audit  Company  of  New  York 
was  not  aware  of  the  provision  of  the  law  re- 
quiring all  of  the  members  of  the  Board  to 
unite  in  making  contracts  and  the  Investiga- 
tion Commission  accepted  the  statement  with- 
out examining  the  record. 

The  report  further  finds  that  there  was 
fraud  in  connection  with  the  supply  of  glass 
for  the  reason  that  tlie  glass  was  made  not 
in  Baccarat  in  France,  but  in  Beaver  county, 
Pennsylvania,  the  schedule  calling  for  "the 
best  quality  cut  crystal  glass  of  Baccarat  manu- 
facture." There  is  no  finding  that  it  was  not 
glass,  that  it  was  not  crystal,  that  it  was  not 
cut,  or  that  it  was  not  best  quality,  but  only 
that  it  was  not  made  in  Baccarat.  I  suppose 
there  was  some  dispute  in  the  testimony  as 
to  whether  the  word  Baccarat  as  used  in  the 
contract  was  a  trade  name  or  the  name  of  a 
little  village  in  a  foreign  country.  I  warn  you 
that  I  am  only  able  to  suppose  because  the 
testimony  and  the  report  of  the  Audit  Com- 
51 


pany  of  New  York,  which  are  the  foundation 
stones  of  the  investigation,  have  through  the 
whole  of  this  inquiry  been  kept  out  of  sight. 
The  finding  upon  this  subject  furnishes  an- 
other instance  of  a  lack  of  familiarity  with 
legislation  upon  the  part  of  these  legislators. 
The  Act  of  March  26,  1895,  Sec.  5,  P.  L.,  p. 
24,  directs  the  Superintendent  of  Public 
Grounds  and  Buildings  that  "In  preparing  the 
list  or  schedule  he  shall  in  all  cases  give  pref- 
erence to  goods  of  American  production  or 
manufacture."  If  the  glass  was  of  greater  or 
equal  merit  it  may  at  least  be  said  for  the 
Board  that  they  pursued  the  policy  of  the  law, 
but  this  fact  escaped  the  attention  of  and  had 
no  weight  with  the  investigators. 

The  report  in  its  "General  Findings  and 
Conclusions"  gives  the  first  and  most  conspicu- 
ous place  to  this  proix)sition :  "As  the  pro- 
visions of  the  law  contemplate  the  refurnish- 
ing and  repair  of  an  old  Capitol  Building  rath- 
er than  the  furnishing  of  a  new  Capitol  Build- 
ing or  the  making  of  alterations  or  additions 
thereto  while  the  same  is  in  process  of  con- 
struction in  the  hands  of  the  contractors," 
therefore  the  construction  of  the  law  as  inter- 
preted by  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  is  "a  clear  evasion,"  and  the  certifi- 
cates upon  which  warrants  were  issued  "were 
52 


made  intentionally  and  fraudulently,"  and  the 
contracts  "were  illegal  and  unauthorized  by 
law."  I  hope  you  will  bear  with  me  patiently 
while  I  point  out  the  utter  fallacy  of  this  prop- 
osition. The  report  miscites  the  statute.  If 
the  word  used  in  the  statute  were  only  "re- 
furnishing" it  might  be  argued  that  it  applied 
to  an  old  building  which  had  been  furnished 
before,  but  the  words  are  "furnishing  and  re- 
furnishing," and  therefore  contemplate  build- 
ings which  had  not  been  furnished  before  as 
well  as  those  which  had  been  so  furnished. 
The  words  "old"  and  "new"  do  not  occur  in 
the  statute  and  are  interpolated  in  order  to 
justify  the  finding.  The  statute  gives  the 
Board  "entire  control  and  supervision  of  the 
public  grounds  and  buildings,  .  .  ,  and 
all  the  repairs,  alterations  and  improvements." 
Where  does  the  Investigation  Commission  find 
in  this  language  anything  which  limits  the  al- 
terations and  improvements  to  old  buildings? 
How  old  ought  they  to  be?  An  act  directed 
the  Board  to  provide  rooms  for  the  Highway 
Department  in  the  Capitol.  Where  would  have 
been  the  sense  in  letting  the  construction  be 
finished  only  to  be  torn  out  and  done  over 
again  with  the  additional  expense? 

The  Investigation  Commission  take  the  po- 
sition that  since  it  was  a  new  building  in  process 
53 


of  construction,  the  Board  had  no  authority  to 
make  contracts  for  furniture.  If  the  Board  had 
taken  this  view  the  building  when  completed 
would  have  been  of  no  use.  If  they  had  insisted 
upon  an  interpretation  of  the  law  in  my  judg- 
ment so  preposterous,  I  do  not  hesitate  to  say 
that  I  should  not  have  permitted  the  situation 
to  continue,  and  as  Governor  I  would  have  or- 
dered the  proper  equipment  of  the  building. 
In  this  connection  I  shall  now  make  a  proposi- 
tion of  constitutional  and  fundamental  law 
which  never  occurred  to  the  investigators  and 
will  probably  startle  them.  It  is  said  that  the 
lenses  in  the  eye  of  a  house-fly  are  adapted  to 
things  so  minute  that  to  him  the  smoothness 
of  a  painting  of  Raphael  is  a  landscape  of  hill 
and  dale.  While  the  investigators  were  ex- 
amining as  with  a  microscope  for  some  flaw 
in  the  leg  of  a  chair  or  some  misplaced  entry 
in  the  books  of  account,  they  lost  sight  of  the 
Capitol,  the  Governor  and  the  Commonwealth. 
The  Governor  of  Pennsylvania  is  one  of  the 
most  potent  rulers  on  earth.  In  this  respect 
he  is  far  above  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  upon  whom  is  conferred  only  limited 
power.  In  defining  the  power  of  the  Governor 
of  Pennsylvania  the  Constitution  of  the  State 
uses  the  strongest  word  in  the  English  lan- 
guage and  makes  him  "supreme."  It  is  the 
54 


adjective  usually  applied  to  the  Deity.  It 
means  that  his  authority  as  executive  can  be 
questioned  by  nobody,  and  that  he  is  only 
answerable  to  his  conscience.  Like  the  King 
of  England,  he  can  do  no  wrong.  Like  the 
Pope  of  Rome,  his  conclusions  are  infallible. 
''The  supreme  executive  power  shall  be  vested 
in  the  Governor  who  shall  take  care  that  the 
laws  be  faithfully  executed."  He  is  the 
guardian  of  the  laws  and  to  him  is  given  su- 
premacy. It  is  through  this  authority  that  he 
has  time  and  again  called  forth  the  National 
Guard,  involving  life  and  death  to  men  and 
the  expenditure  of  millions  of  dollars.  In 
Hartranft's  Appeal,  85  Penna.  433,  where  the 
questions  arose  over  the  killing  of  a  number 
of  persons  under  his  orders,  the  Supreme 
Court  decided  that  the  Governor  was  "the  sole 
judge  not  only  of  what  his  ofificial  duties  are 
but  of  the  time  when  they  should  be  attended 
to,"  and  that  "he  must  be  the  judge  of  the 
necessity  requiring  the  exercise  of  the  powers 
with  which  he  is  clothed."  It  would  have 
made  no  difference  if  the  Court  had  not  so 
decided. 

While  it  would  not  be  discreet  or  wise  for 

the  Governor  to  exercise  such  a  power,   he 

may,  like  Richelieu  invoking  the  authority  of 

Rome,  in  case  of  real  necessity,  order  not  only 

55 


the  furnishing  but  the  building  of  a  Capitol 
irrespective  of  the  Act  of  1895  or  any  other 
acts  and  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  Legisla- 
ture answering  to  their  oaths  to  appropriate 
the  money  to  pay  for  them.  It  is  idle  to  con- 
tend that  a  State  must  perish  for  want  of  an 
Act  of  Assembly  and  the  fact  that  this 
thought  does  not  seem  to  have  occurred  to 
investigators,  lawyers  or  courts,  illustrates 
how  narrow  and  imperfect  a  view  has  been 
taken  of  this  whole  subject.  When  the 
Legislature  unwisely  put  the  Governor  on  the 
Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings  it  put 
him  there  as  Governor  with  all  of  his  power, 
and  the  acts  of  the  Board  in  which  he 
participates  are  his  acts.  The  efforts  of  the 
Investigation  Commission,  Attorney  General 
and  other  minor  officials  to  hold  the  members 
of  the  Board  responsible  on  the  ground  of 
want  of  authority,  were  therefore  not  only  a 
violation  of  law  but  in  a  sense  revolution  and 
treason. 

The  work  of  the  Investigation  Commission 
was  as  defective  in  what  it  failed  to  do  as  in 
its  affirmative  conclusions.  It  entirely  failed 
to  discover,  with  its  expensive  expert,  that  the 
building  and  equipment  had  been  paid  for 
without  withdrawing  the  balance  in  the  treas- 
ury, a  fact  of  overwhelming  importance  in  an 
56 


inquiry  involving  the  skill,  faithfulness  and 
integrity  of  those  in  charge.  It  failed  to  find 
the  fact  that  the  Board  had  succeeded  in  get- 
ting the  architect  in  the  contract  with  him  to 
lessen  his  commissions  twenty  per  cent,  below 
the  usual  rate  which  he  demanded,  although 
this  fact  appeared  in  the  letters  before  them 
and  the  evidence.  It  failed  to  find  that  with 
respect  to  the  contract  with  Edwin  A.  Abbey 
for  art  work  involving  $207,877.50,  Sander- 
son to  whom  it  had  been  awarded  made  no 
profit  whatever,  although  this  appeared  in  the 
written  agreements  on  file.  It  failed  to  find 
that  when  the  Attorney  General  and  John  G. 
Johnson,  Esq.,  came  to  draw  the  agreement 
with  Abbey  for  paintings  they  felt  bound  to 
put  the  compensation  upon  the  basis  of  the 
"per  foot"  rule,  though  this  rule  figures 
extensively  in  its  report.  It  failed  to  secure 
the  testimony  of  either  Berry,  Sanderson  or 
Huston.  If  the  question  of  the  profit  of  San- 
derson was  material,  then  it  failed  to  find 
what  was  that  profit.  If  it  was  of  conse- 
quence to  know  what  was  the  profit  upon  the 
erection  and  equipment  of  the  building,  then 
it  failed  to  find  what  was  that  profit.  Infor- 
mation upon  this  subject  would  have  been 
intensely  interesting,  but  after  all  the  in- 
vestigations, and  all  the  trials  we  are  as 
57 


much  in  the  dark  about  it  as  we  were 
before.  It  failed  to  find  what  the  build- 
ing and  equipment  ought  to  have  cost,  what 
they  were  worth,  or  whether  or  not  the  sum 
for  which  they  were  placed  there  was  reason- 
able. There  is  much  about  detail,  and  the 
methods  of  keeping  books,  and  about  sofas 
and  chairs,  but  these  broad  and  only  essential 
matters  are  entirely  ignored. 

I  now  approach  a  subject  more  specific  and 
even  more  important.  Bear  in  mind,  you 
citizens  of  Pennsylvania,  that  the  accusation 
was  one  of  graft,  in  other  words,  that  the 
officials  obtained  some  of  that  money.  The 
Investigation  Commission  was  given  $i(X),- 
ooo.oo  with  which  to  investigate.  It  had  the 
whole  power  of  the  Commonwealth  behind 
it.  Every  banker  could  be  compelled  to  show 
his  books.  Every  clerk  could  be  compelled 
to  tell  what  he  knew.  Every  one  of  you,  in- 
cluding the  editors,  could  be  dragged  from 
his  home  to  disclose  such  information  as  he 
possessed.  The  State  Treasurer  did  not  pay 
in  cash  but  by  a  written  paper  called  a  war- 
rant which  had  to  be  endorsed.  The  con- 
tractor deposited  it  in  bank  and  the  books 
showed  what  became  of  the  money.  It  goes 
without  saying  that  the  Commission  traced 
these  drafts  and  overhauled  the  books  of  the 
-8 


banks.  It  is  so  reported  definitely.  What  was 
the  result?    Listen  to  what  the  report  says: 

"At  no  point  did  it  show  or  appear  to  show 
that  any  of  the  moneys  paid  by  the  State  to 
its  contractors  in  this  connection  had  been  di- 
rectly converted  to  the  credit  or  use  of  any  of 
the  State  officials  in  the  accounts  examined." 

In  other  words,  the  ascertainment  of  facts 
by  the  Investigation  Commission  absolutely 
supported  the  conclusion  reached  months  be- 
fore without  outlay  by  Mr.  Carson.  The  pur- 
suit in  all  decency  ought  then  and  there  to 
have  ended.  After  the  members  of  this  Com- 
mission had  thrown  out  their  dragnet  for 
graft  and  given  it  the  wide  sweep  which 
$icx),ooo.oo  enabled  them  to  do,  and  hauled 
it  in  and  found  nothing,  they  ought  to  have 
been  strong  and  manly  enough  to  have  resisted 
the  clamor  and  to  have  reported  accordingly. 
Instead,  while  thus  admitting  their  inability 
to  discover  any  evidences  of  graft  and  dis- 
closing the  facts  which  pay  tribute  to  the  in- 
tegrity of  the  officials,  they  recommended  with 
absolute  want  of  logic  that  suits  and  prosecu- 
tions be  brought. 

The  incoming  Attorney  General,  the  Hon. 

M.  Hampton  Todd,  felt  that  his  duty  required 

him   to  comply  with   these  recommendations. 

It  is  necessary  in  order  clearly  to  comprehend 

59 


the  situation  at  this  stage  that  you  should  have 
at  least  a  glimpse  of  his  character.  He  pos- 
sesses all  the  rigidity  and  severity  which  come 
with  generations  of  narrow  training,  and 
nothing  so  delights  him  as  the  noise  of  com- 
bat. He  believes  that  if  Michael  Servetus 
really  did  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  Arians 
and  deny  the  Trinity  it  is  entirely  proper  that 
he  should  have  been  burned  as  a  heretic. 
When  enlisted  in  the  contest  he  became  de- 
termined to  win,  even  though  the  Hittites  and 
the  Amalekites  were  despoiled  of  the  land.  If 
Moses  and  the  Israelites  could  feast  upon  milk 
and  honey,  what  difference  did  it  make  that 
Snyder  should  go  to  prison,  or  Irvine  to  an 
insane  asylum,  or  Payne  to  his  grave?  In 
his  ardor  as  an  advocate,  and  to  him  a  fact 
had  value  not  as  a  revelation  of  the  truth  but 
as  an  aid  to  one  side  of  a  controversy,  he  at 
times  forgot  the  plainest  rules  of  professional 
propriety.  In  an  address  before  the  Pennsyl- 
vania Bar  Association  on  the  29th  of  June, 
1909,  after  he  had  argued  one  of  these  cases 
before  the  Court,  and  pending  a  decision,  in 
the  presence  of  Judges  who  took  part  in  its 
determination,  he  reiterated  his  view  of  the 
law  with  respect  to  it,  and  added: 

"It  was  but  a  slight  departure  from  the 
right  path,  yet  in  the  end  it  caused  one 
60 


of    the    greatest     scandals   of   the    clay, 
ruined  the  reputations  of  men  who  had 
been   honored  by   high  office,   and   some 
of  whom  have  gone  down  in  sorrow  to 
their  graves.     It  caused  a  loss  of  many 
millions  of  dollars  to  this  State  and  be- 
smirched   its    fair    fame    so   that    in    the 
presence  of  strangers  we  hung  our  heads 
in  very  shame  for  the  disgrace  that  had 
been  brought  upon  us." 
If   some    obscure    attorney-at-law    had    en- 
deavored   in    a    petty    case    to    influence    the 
Judges  outside  of  the  Court  he  would  have 
incurred   the   risk  of   disbarment.      Whatever 
may  have  been  the  effect  with  these  surround- 
ings, Mr.  Todd  must  be  acquitted  of  entertain- 
ing such  a  purpose,   for  he   is  an  honorable 
though  mistaken  gentleman;  but  how  sad  it 
is  that  a  man  who  fails  to  keep  his  own  path 
straight  in  a  plain  and  simple  matter  of  pro- 
fessional ethics   should  show  so  little   lenity 
toward  the  supposed  lapses  of  others  in  a  prob- 
lem  as   complicated   as   the   building   of   the 
Capitol. 

Thirty  indictments  were  prepared  charging 
the  defendants  with  conspiracy,  and  seven 
others  charging  them  with  the  crime  of  false 
pretence.  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss 
with  you  the  technical  accuracy  of  the  judg- 
6i 


ments  which  were  rendered.  There  are  many 
questions  which  arise  in  Hfe  of  much  more 
importance  than  the  correctness  of  pleadings 
or  the  admissibihty  of  testimony.  I  shall  ask 
you  to  rise  with  me  into  the  higher  atmosphere 
of  justice  and  humanity,  and  I  shall  present 
to  you  considerations  which  appear  to  me  to 
be  unanswerable.  A  conspiracy  is  necessarily 
based  upon  some  motive  entertained  in  com- 
mon by  all  of  those  who  take  part  in  it.  No 
man  becomes  a  conspirator  merely  for  the  pur- 
jx)se  of  getting  himself  into  trouble.  In  the 
present  instance  the  motive  alleged  was  a  par- 
ticipation by  the  officials  who  were  made  de- 
fendants in  the  division  of  the  moneys  paid 
to  the  contractors.  That  there  should  have 
been  a  conspiracy  between  the  contractors  and 
the  officials  is  rendered  so  improbable  by  the 
circumstances  as  to  be  practically  unthinkable. 
It  is  alleged  to  have  included  fourteen  per- 
sons and  if  it  existed  must  have  been  known 
to  scores  of  clerks  and  employees,  not  one  of 
whom  left  the  slightest  trace  of  its  presence 
that  could  be  discovered.  It  included  three 
different  sets  of  contractors,  those  for  the 
building,  the  metal  cases  and  the  furniture, 
who  had  no  interests  in  common  and  several 
that  were  antagonistic.  It  must  have  been 
that  never  before  heard  of  nondescript,  an 
62 


automatically  transferable  conspiracy.  It  cov- 
ered the  terms  of  two  Governors,  two  Auditors 
Generals  and  two  State  Treasurers,  and  is 
asserted  to  have  included  all  of  them  save  the 
Governors.  They  came  from  different  parts 
of  the  State,  strangers  to  each  other  and  to 
the  contractors,  as  you  elected  them.  In  every 
conspiracy  heretofore  known  to  the  law  the 
conspirators,  like  those  who  murdered  Caesar, 
selected  their  own  companions  upon  whose 
wicked  assistance  they  could  depend.  It  was 
not  so  in  this  conspiracy  which  was  sui  generis. 
When  one  conspirator  disappeared  from  Har- 
risburg  and  went  back  to  his  home  you  elected 
another  conspirator  to  take  his  place.  They 
were  the  highest  officials  in  the  State  and  you 
were  responsible  for  them.  In  its  essence  the 
charge  is  one  made  against  your  intelligence, 
and  your  honesty,  and  it  means  that  you  are 
unfit  for  self  government.  The  State  Treas- 
urer and  the  Auditor  General  who  super- 
vised the  preparation  of  the  schedule  knew 
at  the  time  they  did  it  that  they  would 
not  be  the  State  Treasurer  and  the  Au- 
ditor General  when  the  moneys  were  ex- 
pended, and  who  would  be  their  successors 
they  could  not  tell  and  you  alone  would  de- 
termine. What  kind  of  assurance  then  do  you 
suppose  they  gave  to  the  contractors,  their  fel- 
63 


low  conspirators?  The  conspirators  who  ex- 
pended the  moneys  had  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  awarding  the  contract  for  the  metal 
cases,  or  in  preparing  the  schedule  for  the  fur- 
niture, and  therefore  had  been  utterly  power- 
less to  pave  the  way  for  what  is  alleged  to 
have  been  their  own  connivance  and  profit. 
These  officials  did  not  even  seek  their  places 
on  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Build- 
ings but  were  put  there  by  legislation  passed 
long  before,  over  which  they  had  no  control. 

This  a  priori  reasoning  is  rendered  con- 
clusive when  we  stop  to  examine  a  series  of 
ascertained  and  undisputed  facts.  It  is  axio- 
matic in  ratiocination  that  when  an  accepted 
theory  is  found  to  be  in  conflict  with  any  cer- 
tainly ascertained  fact  the  theory  must  be 
abandoned.  Thus  in  astronomy  if  there  be 
twelve  points  found  which  indicate  a  circle, 
and  then  one  be  found  outside  of  the  circum- 
ference, the  figure  may  be  an  ellipse  but  it 
cannot  be  a  circle.  In  law,  if  the  defendant 
charged  with  murder  is  proved  to  have  ex- 
pressed an  intent  to  kill  and  his  shoes  fit  the 
tracks  in  the  field,  and  he  has  thrown  his 
bloody  knife  into  a  quarry,  and  his  hands  are 
red,  still  be  must  be  acquitted  if  at  the  time 
of  the  crime  he  was  a  hundred  miles  away. 

There  are  a  number  of  facts  in  this  case 
64 


which  show  conclusively  to  any  one  accus- 
tomed to  the  exercise  of  the  rational  faculty 
that  no  such  conspiracy  existed.  Upon  the 
supposition  that  it  did  exist  Huston,  the  archi- 
tect, was  necessarily  the  central  figure  in  it 
for  the  reason  that  he  had  general  charge  of 
the  work,  ordered  every  item  of  material  or 
work  supplied  by  the  contractors  and  could 
have  prevented  any  and  every  bill  from  being 
paid  by  withholding  his  certificate  of  its  cor- 
rectness. The  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  compelled  Huston  to  accept  four 
per  cent,  instead  of  five  per  cent,  for  his  com- 
missions in  the  way  of  compensation  for  his 
services,  and  it  meant  a  saving  of  $82,487.89. 
This  fact  makes  it  certain  they  were  not  in  a 
conspiracy  with  him  to  divide  receipts.  They 
could  have  paid  him  the  five  per  cent,  without 
criticism  for  the  reason  that  that  was  the  usual 
compensation  and  the  percentage  he  received 
from  the  Building  Commission.  Had  they 
been  dividing  receipts  with  him  there  would 
have  been  this  very  comfortable  increase  in  the 
amount  to  be  divided.  The  only  possible  ex- 
planation of  this  fact  is  that  the  Board  were 
acting  adversely  to  the  interests  of  Huston, 
and  any  possible  combination,  and  were  safe- 
guarding the  interests  of  the  Commonwealth. 
When  the  Board  employed  Huston  they  wrote 
6; 


to  him  in  these  words:  "It  is  important, 
nevertheless,  that  the  work  should  be  done  as 
economically  as  possible.  No  doubt  because 
of  the  fact  that  you  already  possess  such  in- 
formation and  of  the  magnitude  of  the  con- 
tract including  Capitol  and  furniture,  you 
would  be  willing  to  make  special  terms  advan- 
tageous to  the  State." 

Before  the  contract  was  made  with  Sander- 
son, the  Board  required  Huston  to  make  a 
general  estimate  of  the  probable  cost  and  he 
fixed  it  at  from  $500,000  to  $800,000.  This 
estimate  the  Board  entered  upon  their  minutes. 
This  fact  is  likewise  absolutely  inconsistent 
with  the  theory  of  the  existence  of  a  con- 
spiracy. Lawrence  Sterne  once  wrote:  "A 
dwarf  who  carries  along  a  standard  to  measure 
himself  with  is  a  dwarf  believe  me  in  more 
articles  than  one."  It  is  simply  inconceivable 
that  men  intending  to  spend  millions  in  order 
that  they  might  share  in  the  distribution  should 
write  down  unnecessarily  a  record  with  which 
to  convict  themselves.  The  fact  cannot  be  ex- 
plained upon  any  other  theory  than  that  it 
was  intended  by  the  Board  as  a  means  of  hold- 
ing Huston  within  reasonable  limits  of  expen- 
diture. 

The  Board  at  the  suggestion  of  Snyder  re- 
quired each  contractor  to  make  affidavit  to  the 
66 


correctness  of  every  bill  presented  by  him  be- 
fore its  payment.  This  fact  alone,  if  there 
were  no  others,  proves  with  entire  certainty 
that  there  could  have  been  no  conspiracy  be- 
tween him  and  the  contractors  to  divide  the 
moneys  paid  under  the  contracts.  The  law 
did  not  demand  such  an  affidavit.  Imagine 
one  of  two  men,  engaged  in  a  crime  in  com- 
mon, saying  in  effect  to  the  other :  "You  make 
yourself  liable  to  a  prosecution  for  perjury 
in  order  that  I  may  appear  to  be  innocent," 
and  what  would  be  the  answer?  Why  should 
he  want  to  throw  more  difficulty  about  draw- 
ing the  moneys  they  were  to  share  out  of  the 
treasury?  Why  should  he  want  to  increase 
the  dangers?  Why  did  ever}'^  one  of  these 
contractors  and  fellow  conspirators  submit 
with  such  docility  to  this  dishonor  among 
thieves  ?  The  theory  is  untenable  and  will  not 
bear  the  light.  The  contractors  made  the  af- 
fidavits only  because  they  knew  they  would 
not  get  the  money  otherwise.  The  man  who 
devised  that  scheme  was  dealing  with  them  at 
arm's  length  as  the  custodian  of  the  interests 
of  the  State,  and  no  other  interpretation  is 
possible. 

That  Snyder  insisted  upon  the  preparation 
by  Huston  of  the  Quantities   Plans  and  the 
Quantities  Book  is  a  fact  of  the  same  con- 
67 


vincing  significance.  These  plans  and  this 
book  located  every  piece  of  furniture  in  the 
entire  building  and  connected  it  with  the  bill 
in  which  it  was  included.  Had  there  been  a 
conspiracy,  the  more  confusion  and  uncer- 
tainty that  could  be  thrown  around  the  ar- 
ticles to  be  identified,  the  more  likelihood 
there  would  be  of  escape  from  detection.  Why 
should  Snyder,  as  a  conspirator,  have  taken 
such  pains  to  smooth  and  make  easy  the  path  of 
the  possible  Audit  Company  of  New  York? 
Why  should  he  want  to  make  so  facile  the 
otherwise  difficult  task  of  Mr.  Todd?  As  a 
conspirator  his  course  is  unfathomable.  If  we 
adopt,  however,  the  simple  explanation  that  he 
demanded  these  plans  and  book  in  order  that 
he  should  be  able  to  hold  the  contractors  to 
a  strict  liability,  it  is  entirely  comprehensible. 
Like  the  eagle  of  the  poet,  he  has  been  pierced 
with  a  shaft  feathered  from  his  own  wing,  and 
it  has  occurred  because  of  the  unwillingness 
or  inability  of  the  prosecutors  to  understand 
the  obvious  meaning  of  assured  facts. 

There  were  three  circumstances  connected 
with  the  awarding  and  execution  of  these  con- 
tracts which  might  properly  awaken  suspicion 
and  lead  to  inquiry,  and  I  shall  now  give  you 
my  thought  in  regard  to  them  with  entire 
frankness. 

68 


First.  Several  of  the  items  in  the  special 
schedule  required  the  bid  to  be  made  at  so 
much  "per  foot."  Undoubtedly  the  Board  in 
using  this  term  made  a  mistake,  since  a  foot 
may  be  either  lineal,  square  or  cubic,  and  the 
terms  of  the  contract  ought  not  to  have  been 
open  to  any  uncertainty  of  construction  if  it 
could  be  avoided.  This  language  could  and 
should  have  been  made  more  specific.  It  may 
be  said,  however,  that  this  term  had  been  used 
by  the  Board  in  making  its  contracts  for  many 
years.  At  the  time  of  the  award  the  uncer- 
tainty of  the  term  made  no  impression  upon 
me  for  the  reason  that  I  knew  of  the  fact 
that  contracts  for  the  erection  of  such  com- 
plicated structures  as  iron  bridges  were 
effected  upon  that  basis.  One  fact  in  this 
connection  I  have  never  understood.  Of  all 
the  possible  bidders,  including  Wanamaker 
and  Tiffany  and  others  interested,  who  spent 
much  time  in  the  examination  of  the  speci- 
fications, not  one  of  them  before  the  contract 
was  awarded  said  a  word  to  me  about  any 
difficulty  in  understanding  the  meaning  of  the 
terms  used.  Had  any  bidder,  or  editor,  seen 
uncertainty  at  that  time  it  could  and  would 
have  been  easily  rectified.  There  are  many 
persons  in  a  community  who  are  much  more 
eager  to  have  an  opportunity  to  find  fault  than 
69 


they  are  to  have  things  done  correctly. 

Second.     On  the  tenth  of  January,    1905, 

the  Board  of  Pubhc  Grounds  and  Buildings 

adopted  this  resolution : 

"Resolved  that  the  revised  plans  pre- 
sented by  Joseph  M.  Huston  for  the 
special  furniture,  fittings  and  decora- 
tions for  the  equipment  of  the  new 
Capitol  building  as  approved  by  the 
Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings 
December  13,  1904,  numbering  from 
393  A  213,  394  A  214,  395  A  215,  396  A 
216,  397  A  217,  400  A  200  and  418  A  238 
inclusive,  and  that  the  contractor  John  H. 
Sanderson  was  directed  to  furnish  the 
same  under  the  supervision  of  the  said 
architect:  and  the  Auditor  General  be 
hereby  directed  to  make  payment  for  the 
same  in  part  or  fully  upon  certification 
of  architect  according  to  the  schedule  of 
June,  1904,  under  which  this  contract  was 
awarded,  and  that  the  prices  on  any  work 
not  provided  for  in  the  plans  adopted 
December  13,  1904,  shall  be  fully  agreed 
upon  between  the  said  John  H.  Sanderson 
and  the  said  Joseph  M.  Huston,  architect, 
subject  to  the  approval  of  the  Board  of 
Public  Grounds  and  Buildings  and  Super- 
intendent J.  M.  Shumaker  before  any  cer- 
70 


tificate  for  payment  shall  be  issued." 
This  resolution  was  treated  during  all  of 
the  trials  by  counsel  upon  each  side  as  mean- 
ing that  the  bills  should  be  paid  without  sub- 
mission to  the  Board  as  required  by  the  Act 
of  1895.  The  reason  that  there  was  a  mutual 
acceptance  of  this  interpretation  was  probably 
because  the  prosecution  hoped  to  gain  an  ad- 
vantage by  claiming  that  it  violated  the  law, 
and  the  defence  by  claiming  it  as  authority 
for  what  was  done.  The  Courts  accepted  an 
interpretation  to  which  no  objection  was  made. 
Unfortunately  in  these  cases  there  was  more 
effort  to  win  than  to  ascertain  the  truth.  The 
resolution  has  no  such  meaning.  By  no  pos- 
sibility can  it  be  so  construed.  While  inarti- 
ficially  drawn  its  real  significance  is  that  no 
bill  should  be  approved  by  the  Board  without 
the  certificate  of  the  architect  and  this  gave  an 
additional  safeguard.  There  is  not  a  word  in 
it  which  says  or  implies  that  the  bills  should 
not  be  presented  to  the  Board.  No  resolution 
could  set  aside  an  Act  of  Assembly,  and  yet 
it  has  been  assumed  that  this  resolution  did 
so  without  saying  anything  about  it  or  ex- 
pressing any  such  intention.  The  language  is 
directly  to  the  contrary.  The  resolution  closes 
with  the  words:  "Subject  to  the  approval  of 
the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings 
71 


and  Superintendent  J.  M.  Shumaker  before 
any  certificate  for  payment  shall  be  issued." 
These  words  qualify  the  whole  resolution,  are 
in  exact  compliance  with  the  law,  and  cannot 
be  confined  to  the  extra  work  which  only 
happens  to  be  the  last  described. 

The  Auditor  General  and  the  State  Treas- 
urer took  the  erroneous  view  of  this  resolution 
which  was  later  accepted  by  the  lawyers,  and 
did  not  bring  the  bills  before  the  Board  for 
approval  until  payments  had  run  up  to  a  large 
sum.  I  shall  give  you  my  explanation  of  the 
reason  for  such  action  with  the  understanding 
that  I  have  no  knowledge  of  their  motives,  and 
may  be  entirely  mistaken,  and  do  them  wrong. 
The  Governor  and  the  other  two  members  of 
the  Board  were  not  in  entire  accord  either  in 
experience,  views  of  life  or  in  judgment  as 
to  what  ought  to  be  done.  The  fault  in  the 
situation  is  fundamental  and  arises  necessarily 
from  lack  of  correct  principle  in  the  Constitu- 
tion. These  officials  were  elected  by  the  people 
and  therefore  chafed  under  the  thought  of 
control  by  the  Governor.  Moreover,  they 
were  both  ambitious  and  looked  forward  to 
further  preferment  in  the  event  of  the  comple- 
tion of  a  great  work  well  accomplished.  The 
mere  handling  of  the  moneys  and  control  over 
and  contact  with  contractors  and  employees  is 
72. 


an  element  of  political  strength.  Seeing  a 
possible  interpretation  of  the  resolution  which 
avoided  the  Governor  they  took  advantage  of 
the  opportunity.  If  this  be  correct  it  was  a 
fault,  and  grievously  have  they  answered  it, 
but  the  gratification  of  political  hopes  and  the 
effort  to  work  out  political  plans  are  very  dif- 
ferent things  from  the  "graft"  with  which 
they  were  accused. 

Third.  Before  the  contract  was  awarded 
the  architect  at  the  request  of  the  Board  made 
a  rough  general  estimate  of  the  probable  cost 
and  fixed  it  at  from  $500,000  to  ^800,000. 
This  sum  was  much  exceeded.  It  was  not  ex- 
pected to  be  exact  or  to  be  anything  more 
than  a  guide.  I  believe  the  architect  had  no 
sure  grounds  upon  which  to  base  his  estimate 
and  that  to  some  extent  the  expenses  ran  away 
with  him  as  he  groped  along.  For  the  con- 
struction of  such  a  building  there  was  no  pre- 
cedent, and  it  is  not  at  all  remarkable  that  he 
could  not  approximate  the  cost.  It  may  be 
said  for  him  with  truth  that  he  was  less  astray 
in  his  estimates  than  were  the  trained  en- 
gineers who  gave  estimates  for  the  cost  of  the 
Quebec  bridge,  the  tunnel  under  the  Hudson, 
and  the  Panama  Canal,  and  many  other  large 
ventures  which  have  been  undertaken  and  less 
successfully  completed.  These  are  all  of  the 
-3 


criticisms  I  feel  called  upon  to  meet. 

With  regard  to  the  proper  prices  of  chairs, 
sofas,  desks  and  bootblack  stands,  I  am  unin- 
formed. In  two  instances  juries  have  found 
that  some  of  them  cost  too  much,  and  it  is 
only  fair  to  assume  that  the  juries  examined 
the  matter  carefully  and  reached  a  correct  con- 
clusion, just  as  it  ought  to  have  been  assumed 
that  officials  did  their  duty.  The  inquiry  nar- 
rowed to  this  extent  is  utterly  immaterial.  If 
I  buy  a  coat  it  is  useless  to  prove  to  me  that 
the  tailor  made  a  thousand  per  cent,  upon  one 
of  the  buttons  when  I  know  that  I  only  paid 
market  price  for  the  coat.  The  only  pertinent 
inquiry  in  this  respect  is  whether  or  not  the 
whole  thing  was  secured  at  a  reasonable  price. 
Upon  the  mural  art  painting,  amounting  to 
$207,877.50,  the  contractor  made  no  profit 
whatever.  Assuming  a  reasonable  profit  to 
have  been  twenty  per  cent.,  that  sum  would 
about  offset  all  the  profits  shown  to  have  been 
secured  by  the  contractor  in  both  of  the  cases 
tried. 

When  the  prosecutions  were  determined 
upon,  there  was  but  one  sensible  course  for  the 
defendants  to  pursue  and  that  was  for  each 
of  them  to  go  into  Court,  tell  every  fact  within 
his  knowledge  concerning  the  matter,  and  in- 
sist upon  the  contractors  showing  exactly  what 
74 


u 


O 

P' 

T3 

^ 

W 

O 

03 

DC 

c 

u 

bi) 

p« 

c 

ho 

M 

« 

(11 

o 

> 

u 

>, 

2 

Xi 

X 

ai 

,t; 

UJ 

Q 

c 

ti. 

a. 

2 

o 
u 

Si    £ 


^  ■  d  jZmCx^ 


profit  they  made,  whether  large  or  small,  and 
what  became  of  every  cent  of  the  moneys, 
whether  in  their  coffers,  or  if  paid  to  others, 
then  to  whom  the  payment  was  made.  Had 
this  course  been  followed  the  outcome  of  the 
prosecutions  would  have  been  ridiculous,  and 
the  effort  to  injure  the  reputation  of  the 
State  and  her  officials  been  abortive.  The 
prosecutors,  however,  had  much  to  gain  and 
nothing  at  stake,  and  the  defendants  had 
much  to  lose,  station,  money,  reputation  and 
even  reason  and  life.  It  is  no  wonder  that 
in  the  face  of  the  clamor  the  defendants 
failed  to  think  correctly  and  ran  every  which 
way  for  shelter.  Unfortunately  the  trials  be- 
came not  an  inquiry  to  ascertain  the  truth 
but  a  struggle  to  secure  tactical  advantage. 
In  such  a  struggle  the  defendants  were  badly 
handicapped  and  almost  helpless.  The  cards 
had  been  stacked  against  them.  The  news- 
papers had  seen  to  it  that  the  juries  were 
packed,  by  telling  them  for  months  before 
they  were  sworn  what  conclusion  they  must 
reach.  Nothing  gives  a  greater  sense  of  ab- 
surdity than  to  read  in  the  testimony  the 
repeated  admonition  of  the  Judge  to  the  jury 
before  him  to  be  careful  not  to  read  a  news- 
paper when  both  were  well  aware  that  this  had 
been  their  daily  mental  pabulum  since  the 
75 


building  had  been  erected.  We  make  a  great 
to-do  when  some  artisan  out  of  a  job  imper- 
sonates his  busy  friend  on  a  jury,  which  does 
little  or  no  harm,  and  we  tolerate  the  whole- 
sale packing  of  juries  and  perversion  of 
justice  in  trials  by  the  press  without  a  murmur. 
The  immense  power  of  the  State  was  thrown 
into  the  scale  against  the  defendants.  Not  only 
were  $95,981.16  expended  upon  the  investi- 
gation, but  the  Act  of  February  11,  1909, 
appropriated  $40,000.00  to  the  Attorney  Gen- 
eral "to  cover  deficiencies"  in  his  department, 
and  $107,961.41  were  expended  for  counsel 
fees  and  costs.  The  Attorney  General  did  not 
trust  these  cases  to  the  District  Attorney  of  the 
county,  who  is  the  officer  elected  by  the  people 
to  conduct  prosecutions,  but  appeared  for  the 
prosecution  in  person.  No  doubt  he  was 
within  his  legal  authority  in  so  doing  but 
when  he  did  it  the  act  had  much  more  than 
the  ordinary  significance.  Generally  it  is  the 
province  of  the  Attorney  General  to  protect 
officials  who  are  attacked  for  something  done 
in  the  performance  of  their  duties.  Huston 
is  even  now  in  the  employment  of  the  State 
and  in  charge  of  the  erection  of  the  Barnard 
statues  and  the  Abbey  paintings  under  his 
contract.  When,  then,  the  Attorney  General 
appeared  he  took  the  responsibility  of  saying 
76 


that  the  Governor  of  the  Commonwealth  and 
you,  the  people,  asked  for  conviction.  There 
is  still  more  behind.  You  will  remember  that 
the  Commonwealth  filed  bills  in  equity  suits 
claiming  money  from  these  defendants  and 
answers  were  made  denying  the  claim.  Sup- 
pose one  of  you  should  have  a  dispute  in 
Court  over  moneys  and  you  should  be  con- 
fronted with  a  criminal  charge,  and  you  found 
your  opponent  conducting  the  prosecution, 
what  hope  would  you  have  of  getting  justice? 
It  makes  no  difference  in  principle  that  one  of 
these  parties  was  the  Commonwealth  and  not 
an  individual.  The  point  is  that  the  power  to' 
guide  the  trial  was  given  to  one  of  the  in- 
terested parties.  The  Commonwealth  was  put 
in  this  unfortunate  and  indefensible  position 
that  having  money  to  gain  by  the  conviction 
of  the  defendants,  she  assumed  and  was  per- 
mitted to  assume  control  of  their  prosecution. 
Even  the  virtues  of  the  defendants  counted 
against  them,  as  when  Snyder's  insistence 
upon  the  Quantities  plans,  which  definitely 
fixed  the  location  of  each  piece  of  furniture, 
resulted  in  their  being  used  to  aid  in  his  con- 
viction. If  the  defendants  had  taken  moneys 
and  shared  them  with  the  politicians,  they 
would  perhaps  have  had  friends  whose  selfish 


interests  alone  would  have  led  to  support,  but 
they  were  abandoned  to  their  fate.  Both  po-. 
litical  parties  sought  to  make  capital  out  of  the 
situation — the  Democrats  through  Berrj'",  and 
the  Republicans,  intrenched  in  control,  through 
investigations  and  prosecutions.  The  Senator 
from  Dauphin  county  was  retained  as  addi- 
tional counsel  for  the  prosecution.  Since  the 
record  shows  that  he  made  no  argument  and 
asked  no  question  of  the  witnesses,  his  pro- 
portion of  the  fees  must  have  been  earned  by 
other  service. 

There  were  commenced  thirty  cases  of  con- 
spiracy and  seven  of  false  pretence.  The  pur- 
pose of  this  subdivision  was  to  overwhelm  the 
defendants  with  a  multiplicity  of  suits,  the 
meeting  of  which  would  exhaust  their  re- 
sources. If  one  jury  should  perchance  acquit, 
they  could  be  brought  up  again  upon  another 
charge  growing  out  of  the  same  transaction 
until  finally  success  should  be  attained.  This 
plan  had  another  and  great  advantage.  It 
enabled  the  prosecution  to  pick  out  for  trial 
anything  they  found  to  be  faulty  and  eliminate 
all  of  the  good  work  which  might  much  more 
than  compensate.  Thus  no  jury  was  permit- 
ted to  hear  that  Sanderson  made  nothing  on 
the  Abbey  contract.  It  is  as  though  you  had 
sold  a  cart  load  of  potatoes  and  the  purchaser 
78       . 


hunting  out  one  that  was  rotten  should  charge 
you  with  dishonesty  while  he  disposed  of  the 
rest.  If  a  conspiracy  existed  it  was  a  combina- 
tion between  the  officials,  the  architect  and  the 
contractors  to  cheat  the  State  in  the  building 
and  equipment  of  the  Capitol,  and  this  was  the 
theory  of  the  prosecution  as  shown  not  only 
by  statements  but  by  the  indictments.  There 
were  not  thirty  little  conspiracies,  and  the 
prosecution  ought  not  to  have  been  permitted 
to  gain  advantage  by  such  oppression.  Both 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  and  the 
Constitution  of  Pennsylvania  provide:  "No 
person  shall  for  the  same  ofifence  be  twice  put 
in  jeopardy  of  life  or  limb."  Huston  was 
acquitted  of  one  of  these  subdivisions  of  a 
conspiracy.  He  was  tried  again  for  another 
and  convicted.  Amid  this  juggling  with  an 
alleged  crime  what  became  of  the  constitutional 
provision  ? 

In  thirty-two  of  the  thirty-seven  cases  the 
prosecution  entered  pleas  of  "nolle  prosequi" 
and  abandoned  the  charges.  The  case  of 
Frank  Irvine  is  especially  pathetic.  He  was 
a  mere  clerk  in  one  of  the  departments. 
While  I  was  Governor  the  bills  would  come 
before  me  for  approval,  often  hundreds  in  a 
day.  They  came  certified  by  the  proper  offi- 
cial. I  formed  the  habit  of  occasionally  select- 
79 


ing  one  at  random  and  examining  the  details. 
On  one  occasion  a  bill  came  for  Capitol  work 
and  I  sent  Irvine  to  make  the  measurements 
which  he  reported.  The  poor  fellow  did  not 
dare  to  disobey.  It  might  have  cost  him  his 
position  to  offend  his  superior.  The  Audit 
Company  of  New  York  found  his  name  on  the 
paper  and  the  Commonwealth  had  him  ar- 
rested. Brooding  over  an  accusation  which 
seemed  to  him  unjust  and  which  he  had  no 
means  of  meeting  he  became  insane,  and  was 
sent  to  an  asylum,  where  I  believe  he  is  still 
confined.  Then  the  prosecution  went  into 
Court  and  admitting  that  they  had  no  evidence 
against  him  abandoned  the  case. 

Two  of  the  cases,  being  those  against 
Charles  G.  Wetter,  the  partner  of  Payne,  con- 
tractor for  the  Capitol,  were  abandoned  upon 
the  payment  by  him  of  $14,000.00.  Thirty- 
two  of  the  cases  were  abandoned  upon  the 
payment  to  the  Commonwealth  of  the  sum  of 
$1,100,000.00.  Deducting  the  $95,981.16  paid 
for  the  investigation,  the  $107,961.41  for 
lawyers'  fees  and  expenses  and  the  $40,000.00 
appropriated  to  the  Attorney  General  for  de- 
ficiencies, if  there  were  no  other  expenses  of 
which  we  are  uninformed,  the  net  sum  received 
by  the  State  was  $870,057.43.  It  had  been 
{setter  simk  in  the  sea.  The  course  pursued 
80 


is  simply  morally  indefensible.  If  the  defend- 
ants were  guilty  of  crime  then  they  ought  to 
have  been  convicted  and  punished.  If  they 
owed  to  the  State  six  millions  of  dollars  as 
alleged  in  the  bills  in  equity  filed,  these  sums 
ought  to  have  been  recovered.  It  has  been 
said  in  an  effort  at  palliation  that  the  payment 
of  $1,114,000.00  was  a  confession  by  the 
defendants.  If  the  giving  up  of  that  sum  was 
a  confession  by  the  defendants  then  much  more 
was  the  giving  up  of  five  times  that  amount 
a  confession  by  the  prosecutors.  Where  the 
money  came  from  is  a  hidden  mystery.  Ex- 
tortion from  the  fears  of  widows  and  orphans, 
from  the  dread  of  further  publicity  and  prose- 
cution, from  the  timidity  of  corporations  who 
might  perchance  lose  their  substance,  it  may 
have  been.  They  had  seen  that  neither  the 
long  and  meritorious  service  of  Snyder,  nor 
his  reputation  among  his  fellow  men,  had  been 
enough  to  protect  him  in  the  Courts  of  the 
land  and  they  might  well  be  in  fear.  But 
confession  it  could  not  be  for  the  reason  that 
Sanderson,  Payne  and  Mathues  were  in  their 
graves  and  beyond  confession.  When  a 
woman  or  a  man  has  brought  a  charge  of 
crime,  and  for  money  then  offers  to  withdraw 
it  and  have  a  "nolle  prosequi"  entered,  she 
or  he  is  properly  discredited  and  disbelieved. 
81 


The  deed  is  no  better  when  done  by  a  State. 
When  the  Attorney  General  settled  those 
prosecutions  for  money,  and  went  into  Court 
and  said  officially  upon  the  record  that  they 
had  been  improvidently  brought,  he  dragged 
the  Commonwealth  down  to  the  ethical  plane 
of  the  blackmailer.  Proud  of  the  State  in 
which  my  people  have  lived  for  two  centuries 
and  a  quarter,  and  of  which  I  have  been  the 
Governor,  when  a  man  from  New  York  or 
Chicago,  into  whose  ears  have  been  poured 
false,  treacherous  and  defamatory  tales, 
points  with  derision  to  the  Capitol,  I  stand 
erect  and  confute  him  with  facts  of  which  he 
has  never  heard.  But  when  a  solemn  decree 
is  entered  by  the  Court  of  Dauphin  County 
dismissing  a  charge  of  crime  against  the  State 
for  a  consideration,  what  recourse  is  there  save 
silence?  Thirty-four  of  the  thirty-seven  cases 
were  disposed  of  after  the  manner  above  nar- 
rated. In  another  case  Cassel,  Huston,  Shu- 
maker,  Snyder  and  Mathues  were  all  acquitted 
and  the  jury  found  that  the  costs  should  be 
paid  by  the  prosecutor,  which  means  that  in 
their  judgment  the  suit  ought  never  to  have 
been  commenced.  In  only  two  of  the  thirty- 
seven  cases  did  the  prosecutors  succeed.  I 
have  read  with  the  utmost  care  the  1403 
printed  pages  of  testimony  in  the  one  case 
82 


and  the  962  pages  in  the  other,  and  the  one 
immense,  overpowering  and  overwhelming 
fact  that  appears  in  this  testimony  is  that 
there  is  not  a  word  of  evidence  anywhere 
that  either  of  the  officials  received  a  dollar 
from  the  contractors,  and  there  was  not  the 
slightest  attempt  to  offer  such  evidence.  The 
hurricane  of  graft  which  blew  around  the 
editorial  chambers  was  not  even  a  zephyr  in 
the  Court  room.  Mr.  Carson,  the  Investiga- 
tion Commission  and  the  Court  all  alike  failed 
to  find  any  trace  of  its  existence.  I  have  a 
copy  of  the  evidence  bound  and  shall  present 
the  volume  to  one  of  our  libraries  so  that  it 
may  be  seen  hereafter  upon  what  kind  of  tes- 
timony men  in  our  day  were  imprisoned.  You 
will  probably  ask  me,  if  this  be  correct,  how 
did  it  happen  that  they  were  convicted.  Evi- 
dence was  given  that  certain  articles  cost  too 
much,  that  certain  measurements  were  incor- 
rect, that  certain  charges  which  ought  to  have 
been  made  under  one  item  of  the  schedule 
were  made  under  another,  and  from  such  facts 
the  jury  were  left  to  guess  at,  to  infer  the 
guilt.  You  may  at  various  times  have  paid 
too  much  for  a  ton  of  coal  and  it  may  even 
have  been  short  in  weight,  but  I  take  it  you 
never  understood  that  you  were  in  consequence 
guilty  of  a  crime. 

83 


I  wish  to  be  entirely  respectful  to  the  learned 
Judge  before  whom  the  case  of  Snyder  was 
tried,  and  I  entertain  for  him  personal  and 
professional  regard,  but  there  are  some  feat- 
ures of  its  conduct  to  which  reference  must 
be  made.  The  very  foundation  stone  of 
English  and  American  criminal  law  is  that 
the  defendant  is  presumed  to  be  innocent. 
He  who  asserts  that  his  fellow  has  committed 
a  crime  must  prove  it.  The  presumption 
in  favor  of  innocence  must  be  overcome  by 
proof.  There  are  some  Judges  who  take 
care  that  no  case  be  tried  before  them,  not 
even  that  of  the  most  hardened  offender, 
without  the  jury  being  made  to  understand 
this  attitude  of  the  law.  There  never  was  a 
case  tried  where  it  was  more  important  that 
this  principle  should  be  explained  and  empha- 
sized than  in  that  of  Snyder.  He  came  into 
Court  condemned  by  newspaper  trial  and  re- 
quired to  disprove  a  conclusion  reached  in 
advance.  Every  juror  knew  that  should 
Snyder  be  acquitted  he,  too,  would  be  attacked, 
recklessly  accused  of  having  been  bribed,  his 
face  put  in  the  morning's  papers,  and  if  ever 
any  of  his  second  cousins  had  killed  a  sheep 
or  begotten  a  bastard,  the  fact  would  be  printed 
over  the  land. 

Never  before  in  the  history  of  jurisprudence 
84 


had  this  kind  of  pressure  been  equalled.  In 
the  very  midst  of  the  trial,  one  of  the  Counsel 
for  the  prosecution  had  two  interviews  with  a 
member  of  the  jury  in  his  office,  an  arrest  re- 
sulted and  five  newspapers  proclaimed  the  fact 
saying  among  other  things  that  sleuths  had 
followed  the  juror  for  days  and  that  four  other 
arrests  were  to  follow.  Then  when  the  atten- 
tion of  the  Court  was  called  to  the  matter  by 
the  defence,  the  prosecution  admitted  that  a 
mistake  had  been  made,  that  the  man  arrested 
had  been  discharged,  and  that  no  juror  was 
suspected  (Testimony,  page  1091).  Never- 
theless the  Judge  did  not  even  refer  in  his 
charge  to  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  law 
that  the  defendant  was  presumed  to  be  inno- 
cent. 

There  is  another  wise  leg^l  provision 
founded  upon  experience  and  never  anywhere 
disputed.  Public  officials  in  the  performance 
of  their  work  are  presumed  to  have  been 
faithful  to  their  duties.  Had  the  jury  been 
informed  that  this  is  the  universal  law  always 
invoked  it  might  have  saved  Snyder.  The 
charge  of  the  Judge  was  silent  upon  the  sub- 
ject. 

An  experience  of  nearly  fourteen  years  on 
the  bench  leads  me  to  say  that  in  the  trial  of 
causes,  which  are  disputed  and  supported  by 


testimony,  there  are  always  certain  facts  dis- 
closed which,  when  read  in  their  proper  rela- 
tion, point  inevitably  to  the  truth  of  the  con- 
troversy. This  case  is  no  exception.  I  shall 
now  go  over  with  you  a  series  of  events  occur- 
ring in  this  trial  which  illustrate  what  I  mean 
and  the  deductions  from  which  are  unanswer- 
able and  conclusive.  No  analytical  and 
trained  mind  can  escape  their  significance. 

In  his  opening  address  to  the  jury  in  the 
trial  of  Huston,  his  counsel,  the  Hon.  George 
S.  Graham,  said : 

"We  will  show  you  that  our  attitude 
has  always  been  the  same  and  that  when 
this  matter  first  came  up  before  even  the 
first  case  was  tried  (Snyder's)   we  went 
to  the  Attorney  General  of  the  Common- 
wealth   of    Pennsylvania    and    his    dis- 
tinguished associates  who  sit  at  this  table 
and  told  them  the  story  of  that  letter  and 
that  it  was  a  lie,  at  a  time  zvhen  under 
the  promise  extended  to  us  Huston  had 
no  expectation  of  ever  being  tried  for  this 
offence."     (Testimony,  page  484). 
If  this  statement  of  Mr.  Graham  be  correct 
the  Attorney  General  made  a  bargain,  under 
the   terms   of   which   Huston   was  not  to  be 
prosecuted,  and  he  failed  to  keep  his  compact. 
If  Mr.  Graham  be  not  correct,  nevertheless  it 
86 


is  certain  that  some  such  arrangement  either 
avowed  or  tacit  was  made.  In  the  Snyder  case 
Mr.  Graham  on  behalf  of  Huston  asked  for 
a  severance,  and  much  to  the  surprise  of  all 
who  watched  the  scene  the  prosecution  as- 
sented to  the  proposition.  This  was  followed 
by  the  appearance  of  Stanford  B.  Lewis,  the 
man  of  affairs  for  Huston,  who  had  charge 
for  him  at  the  Capitol  and  was  in  a  sense  a 
partner,  as  a  witness  for  the  prosecution. 
Incidentally  you  will  observe  that  since  Huston 
was  the  central  figure  in  all  of  the  Capitol 
transactions  the  prosecution  never  would  have 
assented  to  his  escape  save  from  a  knowledge 
that  the  evidence  in  their  hands  did  not  prove 
their  case.  It  makes  no  difference  whether  or 
not  the  statement  of  Mr.  Graham  accurately 
narrates  what  occurred.  Huston  and  Lewis, 
who  was  likewise  indicted,  believed  that  if 
they  helped  the  prosecution  they  would  avoid 
the  trials  which  threatened  them.  The  con- 
sideration given  for  the  testimony  of  Lewis 
was  either  promise  or  hope.  He  took  the 
stand  for  the  prosecution.  He  assumed  re- 
sponsibility for  the  preparation  of  the  letter 
from  Huston  to  Carson,  he  came  into  collision 
with  both  Carson  and  myself,  and  he  testified 
that  Sanderson  once  said  "he  had  to  put  up 
a  big  wad  for  other  people."  These  state- 
87 


ments  show  his  willingness  and  eagerness  to 
earn  his  reward.  He  never  was  tried.  We 
may  feel  sure  that  we  know  whatever  he  and 
Huston  were  able  to  tell.  He  did  not  pro- 
duce a  letter,  or  a  check,  or  a  memorandnni, 
or  a  paper  of  any  kind  which  disclosed  a  con- 
spiracy, nor  in  the  hundred  pages  or  so  of  his 
testimony  did  he  give  any  fact  more  serious 
than  the  uncertain  and  vague  statement  hereto- 
fore attributed  to  Sanderson.  It  is  plain  then 
that  Huston  knew  of  the  existence  of  no  con- 
spiracy and  since  he  did  not  know  of  it  there 
could  have  been  no  conspiracy. 

When  the  Snyder  case  went  to  the  Supreme 
Court  this  was  the  result :  "A  majority  of  the 
Court  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  judgment 
appealed  from  should  be  affirmed  on  the 
opinion  of  the  Superior  Court."  It  was 
whispered  among  the  bar  that  three  of  the 
Justices  were  in  favor  of  sustaining  the  con- 
viction, that  three  of  them  were  of  the  opinion 
that  there  was  no  evidence  whatever  of  a  con- 
spiracy, and  that  the  seventh  concluded  that 
the  charge  of  the  Court  below  was  inadequate, 
but  that  since  counsel  for  the  defendants  did 
not  ask  for  fuller  instructions  the  judgment 
ought  to  be  affirmed.  Counsel  were  weary, 
principles  had  been  forgotten,  and  therefore 
Snyder  properly  suffered.     Certain  it  is  that 


the  minority  of  the  Court  were  decided  in  their 
views  or  an  opinion  would  have  been  written 
in  this  the  most  important  case  that  ever 
came  before  them,  involving  the  liberty  of  men 
of  high  standing  in  the  community  and  the 
reputation  of  the  Commonwealth. 

In  the  other  case  the  conviction  of  Huston 
was  secured  with  painful  difficulty.  He  had 
already  been  acquitted  upon  one  of  the  sub- 
divisions of  the  supposed  conspiracy  and  should 
he  be  again  acquitted  it  would  make  the  pun- 
ishment of  Snyder  an  absurdity.  After  the 
trial  the  prosecution  secured  affidavits  of  eleven 
of  the  jurymen  detailing  what  occurred  during 
their  deliberations.  According  to  one  of  these 
affidavits,  only  four  of  the  twelve,  according 
to  ten  of  the  affidavits  only  five  of  the  twelve, 
voted  in  favor  of  conviction  of  conspiracy. 

Evidently  the  jury  then  made  a  compromise 
because  they  brought  into  Court  this  verdict: 
"We  find  the  defendant  guilty  of  defraud- 
ing the  Commonwealth."     The  indictment  did 
not  charge  him  with  defrauding,  but  with  con- 
spiracy.    This  conversation  then  ensued: 
"The  Court  :  Gentlemen,  do  you  mean 
by  this  that  you  find  the  defendant  guilty 
of  the  conspiracy  charged  in  the  indict- 
ment ? 

The  Foreman  :     No.  sir. 
89 


The  Court:  You  must  determine. 
The  question  for  you  to  determine  is 
whether  he  is  guilty  of  the  conspiracy 
charged  in  the  indictment.  You  mean  by 
this,  you  find  him  guilty  of  the  charge 
contained  in  this  indictment? 

The  Foreman:  It  is  changed,  don't 
you  see? 

The  Court:  You  say  the  defendant 
is  guilty  of  defrauding  the  Common- 
wealth. We  ask  you  whether  you  mean 
by  that  whether  you  find  him  guilty  of 
the  charge  contained  in  this  indictment. 
Is  that  what  you  mean? 

The  Foreman:  We  let  the  conspir- 
acy off,  we  agreed  to  let  the  conspiracy 
off. 

The  Court:  The  question  to  deter- 
mine is  whether  he  was  guilty  of  the  con- 
spiracy. 

The  Foreman:  That  is  what  we 
would  not  agree. 

The  Court:  Have  you  considered 
that? 

The    Foreman:     Yes,    sir,    and    we 
agreed  that  there  was  no  conspiracy;  we 
have  agreed  on  that." 
It  would  appear  as  though  the  Court  had 
pushed  the  inquiry  to  the  end  and  secured  a 
90 


definite  statement  by  the  foreman  of  the  find- 
ing of  the  jury  with  respect  to  the  crime 
charged.  A  jury  cannot  all  talk  at  once.  The 
foreman  is  their  sp>okesman.  If  he  states  the 
finding  inaccurately  any  one  of  the  jury  may 
object  and  counsel  have  the  right  to  have  the 
name  of  each  juryman  called  so  that  he  may 
answer.  Neither  event  occurred  and  the  fore- 
man had  stated  that  the  jury  agreed  that  there 
was  no  conspiracy.  It  will  be  further  observed 
that  the  Judge  in  pressing  these  queries  re- 
peated three  times  in  almost  the  same  words 
this  thought :  "The  (juestion  to  determine  is 
whether  he  was  guilty  of  the  conspiracy." 
That  was  not  the  question  they  were  to  de- 
termine. There  was  another  alternative.  The 
defendant  might  perchance  have  been  innocent. 
This  possibility  does  not  appear  to  have  been 
in  the  mind  of  the  Court.  The  newspaper 
presumption  even  in  Court  overpowered  the 
legal  presumption.  The  situation  shows  how 
important  it  is,  if  we  are  to  maintain  our  sys- 
tem of  government  and  law,  that  some  means 
should  be  found  to  prevent  the  influence  upon 
trials  of  irrespwDusible  publication.  The  Court 
then  continued : 

"The  question  for  you  to  determine  is 
whether  the   defendant   is  guilty   of   the 
conspiracy   charged     in    the    indictment, 
91 


being  party  to  the  conspiracy  charged  in 
the  indictment  to  defraud  the  Common- 
wealth.    That  is  what  you  mean?" 
You  will  again  observe  that  only  an  inter- 
rogation point,  an  intonation  of  a  voice  which 
can  no  longer  be  heard,  saved  this  from  being 
an  absolute  finding  by  the  Court  against  the 
defendant. 

"The  Foreman  :  They  all  agreed. 
That  is  the  only  way  they  would  agree. 
The  Court:  We  will  have  to  send 
you  back  and  you  will  have  to  determine 
the  question  before  you.  This  indict- 
ment charges  the  defendant  with  having 
conspired  with  the  other  persons  named 
in  the  indictment  with  the  conspiracy  to 
cheat  and  defraud  the  State  by  means  of 
the  false  bill  set  forth  therein.  That  is 
the  question  you  are  called  upon  and  you 
are  sworn  to  determine.  If  you  have  not 
considered  that  or  reached  a  determina- 
tion upon  that  you  may  retire  and  con- 
sider that  question.  The  charge  is  that 
of  conspiracy,  with  having  acted  in  con- 
cert with  the  other  persons  named  in  the 
indictment  to  cheat  and  defraud  the 
Commonwealth  in  the  manner  set  forth 
pursuant  to  an  understanding  between 
him  and  the  others. 

92 


Mr.  Graham  :  If  they  are  not  giiilty 
of  the  conspiracy  they  are  not  g^iilty  of 
anything. 

The  Court  :  If  he  is  not  guilty  of  the 
conspiracy,  if  he  is  not  guilty  of  the 
charge  in  the  indictment,  then  you  say  so 
by  your  verdict.  If  he  is  guilty,  if  you 
are  satisfied  beyond  a  reasonable  doubt 
that  he  is  guilty  of  conspiring  with  the 
others  to  cheat  and  defraud  the  Common- 
wealth by  means  of  the  false  bill  set  forth 
therein,  you  say  so  by  your  verdict. 
Suppose  you  retire  and  consider  that. 
You  understand  that  the  charge  is  that 
the  defendant  passed  this  bill,  that  he 
passed  this  bill  set  forth  in  the  indictment, 
knowing  that  it  was  false,  with  intent  to 
cheat  and  defraud  the  Commonwealth  and 
did  so  pursuant  to  an  existing  understand- 
ing between  him  and  the  other  persons 
named  in  the  indictment  who  also  ap- 
proved and  certified  and  caused  the  bill 
to  be  paid." 
The  jury  retired  to  their  room,  yielded,  and 

brought  in   a   verdict   of   guilty   as   indicted. 

The  Supreme  Court  affirmed  this  judgment, 

likewise  without  an  opinion,  and  by  a  divided 

Court. 

In  his  closing  address  to  the  jury  in  the 
93 


Huston  case,  the  senior  counsel  for  the  prose- 
cution said :  "Every  guardian  selected  by  the 
law  to  protect  the  Commonwealth  was  faith- 
less to  his  trust."  This  langniage  accurately 
expresses  the  theory  of  these  prosecutions 
that  all  of  the  men  whom  you  elect  to  respon- 
sible office  are  given  to  iniquity  and  proper  to 
be  condemned.  The  theory  is  false,  conceived 
in  mental  narrowness  and  obliquity,  and  is 
contrary  to  human  nature,  and  contradicted  by 
all  human  experience. 

In  the  evidence  in  the  case  of  Snyder 
(page  851)  appears  this  letter,  written  by  him 
to  Sanderson,  July  10,  1905 : 

"Replying  to  your  request  as  to  whether 
advances  will  be  made  on  goods  which 
have  been  partly  completed  or  wholly 
completed  and  not  yet  delivered  into  the 
possession  of  the  State,  I  desire  to  say 
what  I  have  repeatedly  said  to  you  here- 
tofore, that  no  advanced  payment  either 
wholly  on  in  part  will  be  made  on  account 
of  your  contract  of  June,  1904,  designated 
as  special  furniture,  carpet,  fittings  and 
decorations  schedule  at  the  new  Capitol 
in  Harrisburg,  Pa.  No  payment  will  be 
made  on  account  of  the  contract  until  the 
goods  are  delivered  and  in  possession  of 
the  State,  and  then  only  upon  goods  and 

94 


items  under  the  special  schedule,  of  which 
you  were  the  successful  bidder  and  for 
which  the  contract  was  awarded  to  you 
by  the  Board  of  Public  Grounds  and 
Buildings  in  June,  1904.  Before  any 
payment  is  made,  even  after  delivery  of 
the  goods  into  the  possession  of  the  State, 
the  architect  must  certify  by  certificate 
designating  the  item  in  the  special 
schedule  under  which  these  goods  were 
made,  and  certify  further  the  amount  you 
are  entitled  to  receive,  and  that  the  goods 
had  been  made  according  to  plans  and 
specifications  and  at  the  price  you  were 
awarded  the  contract.  The  Superintend- 
ent of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings 
must  further  certify  that  the  goods  had 
been  delivered  and  are  in  the  possession 
of  the  State.  And  your  bills  must  be 
specially  itemized  and  show  in  what 
rooms  these  goods  are  placed,  and  the 
correctness  of  your  itemized  bills  must 
also  be  certified  to  by  the  Superintendent 
of  Public  Grounds  and  Buildings.  And 
I  wish  further  to  say  that  a  warrant  will 
not  be  drawn  for  the  payment  of  any 
item,  part  or  parts,  either  in  whole  or  in 
part,  unless  it  was  awarded  you  under 
your  contract  of  June,  1904,  and  that  it 
95 


has  been  made  according  to  the  plans  ap- 
proved by  the  Board  of  PubHc  Grounds 
and    Buildings.      Any   deviation   will   be 
considered  a  just  cause  to  withhold  a  war- 
rant until  the  bill  has  been  corrected  and 
properly  certified  as  hereinbefore  stated." 
In  any  ordinary  case  where  the  jury  were 
permitted  to  form  their  own  conclusions  from 
the  testimony  offered,  this  letter  in  itself  would 
have    resulted    in    the    acquittal    of    Snyder. 
Written  to  the  contractor  at  the  outset,  at  a 
time  when  no  one   knew   how  much   money 
would  be  expended,  it  is  entirely  inconsistent 
with  the  thought  of  the  existence  of  a  con- 
spiracy. 

The  same  counsel  for  the  prosecution  de- 
scribed Huston  as  a  man  "endowed  with 
genius  to  coin  forms  from  leaf  and  star  and 
cloud,  entrusted  with  the  fame  of  his  State, 
respected  by  all  who  knew  him,"  and  then 
declared  that  "he  had  received  his  meed  of 
ill  gotten  gain  without  what  seemed  to  be 
the  grime  and  the  crime  and  the  dirt  of 
the  hands  that  thrust  it  upon  him."  He  was, 
therefore,  at  the  same  time  both  an  angel 
of  light  and  an  imp  of  darkness.  The  char- 
acter is  too  complex  to  be  accepted  as  prob- 
able. The  artist  has  made  his  contrasts  too 
bold  and  glaring  to  be  natural,  and  we  may 
96 


rest  assured  that  he  has  handled  his  brush 
too  carelessly  to  be  accurate.  For  one  part 
of  the  statement  the  proof  is  the  Capitol 
standing  on  the  banks  of  the  Susquehanna, 
where  all  the  world  may  see,  but  the  expendi- 
ture of  over  two  hundred  thousand  dollars 
failed  to  result  in  the  discovery  of  any  trace 
of  "ill  gotten  gain."  The  lack  of  proof  was 
supplied  by  the  vehemence  of  the  editor  in  his 
office  and  of  the  advocate  in  the  court  room. 

I  have  already  called  your  attention  to  the 
report  of  the  Investigation  Commission  upon 
the  information  secured  by  them  that  "at  no 
point  did  it  show  or  appear  to  show  that  any 
of  the  moneys  paid  by  the  State  to  its  contrac- 
tors in  this  connection  had  been  directly  con- 
verted to  the  credit  or  use  of  any  of  the  State 
officials."  In  the  trial  of  Snyder  the  Court 
found  as  follows : 

"The  uncontradicted  evidence  in  the 
case  and  the  admission  of  the  Common- 
zvealth  is  that  every  piece  of  furniture 
charged,  billed  and  paid  for  was  delivered 
to  and  received  by  the  State  from  San- 
derson, one  of  the  defendants."  And 
again : 

"The  uncontradicted  evidence  in  the 
case  and  the  admission  of  the  Common- 
wealth is  that  all  the  furniture  and  ever}' 

97 


article  charged,  billed  and  paid  for  was  of 
the  quality  which  Sanderson,  one  of  the 
defendants,  was  required  and  had  con- 
tracted to  furnish." 

Never  before  in  the  history  of  the  world, 
so  far  as  I  know,  were  criminals  imprisoned, 
not  even  William  Penn  and  Robert  Morris, 
who  were  likewise  sent  to  jail  by  the  foolish 
of  their  day,  with  such  astounding  certificates 
on  record  of  their  integrity  and  of  their 
efficrency. 

I  have  now  told  you  the  story  of  the  dese- 
cration of  the  Capitol  and  have  given  you  my 
reasons  for  the  belief  that  it  has  been  an  ex- 
hibition of  egregious  folly,  sordidness  and 
wickedness.  No  doubt  I  should  have  been 
more  comfortable  if  I  had  gone  along  to  the 
end  of  my  life  leaving  this  wrong  for  the  future 
to  redress,  but  I  have  endeavored  through- 
out my  career  hitherto  never  to  flinch  from 
what  I  conceived  to  be  the  performance  of  a 
duty  and  I  do  not  propose  to  begin  in  a  mat- 
ter of  such  moment  in  which  I  have  been  con- 
cerned. It  is  due  to  Huston,  Snyder  and 
Shumaker  that  I  should  bear  my  testimony  to 
the  merits  of  their  achievement.  It  is  due  to 
the  Commonwealth  that  some  one,  with  a  sem- 
blance of  authority  and  the  power  of  speech, 
should  raise  his  voice  in  protest  against  the 
98 


harm  done  to  her  and  in  answer  to  the  re- 
proach which  has  been  cast  upon  her  and 
which  she  Httle  deserves.  The  hypocrisy 
which  claims  praise  for  the  Capitol,  for  the  ef- 
fectiveness of  that  which  is  useful,  the  beauty 
of  that  which  is  ornamental,  the  paintings  of 
Abbey  and  Violet  Oakley,  the  tile  floor  of 
Mercer  and  the  statuary  of  Barnard,  and  gives 
no  credit  to  Huston  who  secured  them  all  for 
us,  whose  genius  designed  and  whose  energy 
completed  the  work,  is  a  disgusting  thing,  to 
be  held  aloft  for  condemnation. 

The  results  of  the  investigation  and  the 
trials,  imperfect  at  every  step  as  I  have  shown 
them  to  be,  have  been  both  sad  and  baneful. 
The  reputation  of  Pennsylvania  through  the 
erection  of  a  public  building  massive  and  or- 
nate, with  such  promptness  and  skill  and 
within  the  revenues,  would  have  been  strength- 
ened over  the  world  if  a  perverse  stupidity  had 
not  intervened  to  prevent.  Hereafter  what  of- 
ficial will  dare  to  undertake  any  important  task 
for  the  welfare  of  the  State,  with  the  knowledge 
of  the  fate  which  befell  Snyder  confronting 
him?  What  architect  of  reputation  will  risk 
its  loss  in  your  service?  What  contractor  will 
not  want  compensation  for  his  work  and  also 
for  the  danger  he  runs  of  losing  his  payments 
and  being  accused  of  crime  by  some  future 
99 


Berry  looking  for  office  and  encouraged  by 
this  example?  Edwin  S.  Stuart,  genial,  good 
hearted  and  worthy,  had  in  mind  one  import- 
ant work  with  which  he  hoped  to  signalize  his 
administration.  On  the  stump  and  in  man}' 
public  addresses  he  urged  the  construction  of 
a  great  highway  to  span  the  State  from  Phila- 
delphia to  Pittsburgh.  In  deference  to  his 
opinion  and  his  wishes  the  Senate  and  House 
passed  a  bill  providing  for  its  construction. 
He  vetoed  the  bill.  He  did  not  do  it  for  the 
lack  of  money.  If  a  Capitol  could  be  con- 
structed from  income  so  could  a  road.  He 
found  over  eleven  millions  of  dollars  in  the 
treasury  left  by  his  predecessor.  It  was  be- 
cause he  thought  it  wiser  and  safer  for  him- 
self and  those  around  him  not  to  undertake 
what  he  believed  to  be  for  the  benefit  of  the 
State.  After  the  route  should  be  selected 
there  would  be  many  towns  through  which  the 
road  could  not  pass,  after  the  contracts  should 
be  awarded  there  would  be  many  contractors 
whose  bids  were  not  accepted,  and  all  over 
the  State  there  would  be  ambitious  and  insin- 
cere politicians  ready  to  take  advantage  of  the 
situation.  He  saw  before  his  eyes  and  learned 
from  his  own  legal  adviser  the  kind  of  re- 
ward which  had  been  meted  out  to  men  who 
accomplished   important  tasks   in   aid   of   the 

100 


public,  and  he  declined  to  support  his  own 
proposition.  For  the  next  hundred  years  Penn- 
sylvania will  reap  the  crop  which  has  been, 
sown  for  her  and  will  pay  with  substantial 
losses  for  the  indignities  which  have  been 
heaped  upon  the  officials  you  elected  to  your 
highest  offices.  One  such  loss  irreparable  in 
its  character  she  has  already  sujffered.  Edwin 
A.  Abbey  was  one  of  the  contractors  for  the 
decoration  of  the  Capitol.  Born  in  Philadel- 
phia, he  had  attained  world-wide  reputation 
for  his  wondrous  skill  in  art.  When  employed 
by  the  architect  he  expressed  his  intention  of 
doing  the  most  important  work  of  his  life  upon 
the  Capitol  of  his  native  State.  Then  came 
the  scandal,  bruited  in  London  as  elsewhere, 
with  its  demoralizing  results,  with  its  uncer- 
tainty as  to  whether  he  would  ever  be  paid  for 
his  labors,  and  his  activities  temporarily  ceased. 
Now  he  is  dead,  wMth  his  task  but  half  com- 
pleted, and  Pennsylvania  has  lost  forever  the 
treasures  themselves  and  the  opportunity  of 
signalizing  the  genius  of  one  of  her  sons. 
And  consider  the  wickedness  and  cruelty  which 
were  a  part  of  this  degradation.  Sander- 
son, Mathues  and  Payne  were  driven  to  their 
graves  and  Irvine  to  an  insane  asylum.  A 
fiendish  malice  gloating  over  their  misery 
has  suggested  that  they  died  and  became  in- 


sane  because  of  a  wrong  they  knew  they 
had  done.  In  the  days  of  our  barbarous  fore- 
fathers, when  the  Hghtning  struck  and  con- 
sumed the  hut  and  meager  possessions  of  some 
peasant,  they  assumed  that  he  had  committed 
a  crime  and  that  the  Lord  was  angry  with  him. 
The  leper  lost  his  reputation  as  well  as  his 
life.  We  are  not  yet  very  far  removed  from 
barbarism.  Who  ever  knew  a  thief  to  die  of 
remorse?  Men  perish  because  the  burdens 
laid  upon  their  shoulders  and  their  brains  are 
too  heavy  for  them  to  bear,  and  the  imagina- 
tion can  conceive  of  no  load  more  grievous 
and  more  likely  to  crush  humanity  to  the 
earth  than  the  consciousness  of  having  labored 
faithfully  and  attained  success  only  to  be  fol- 
lowed by  persecution  and  ingratitude.  John 
Fitch,  after  inventing  the  steamboat  and  run- 
ning it  for  three  months  upon  the  Delaware 
before  a  people  too  dull  to  comprehend,  went 
out  to  Kentucky  and  hanged  himself. 

Huston,  Snyder  and  Shumaker,  knowing 
the  good  they  endeavored  to  do  and  accom- 
plished, need  have  no  sense  of  shame  and  do 
not  require  your  sympathy.  The  shame  is  on 
those  who  misused  the  power  of  the  Common- 
wealth. Let  those  who  fanned  and  fostered 
the  scandal  take  the  responsibility.  When  in 
future  agfes  the  curious  delver  turns  from  the 


beauties  of  the  Capitol  to  dig  among  the  for- 
gotten records  of  these  trials  it  will  be  with 
strange  wonderment  that  such  events  could 
have  happened  in  the  twentieth  century,  and 
to  write  the  names  of  these  persecutors  along- 
side of  those  of  the  Council  who  clamored  for 
the  execution  of  John  Huss  and  of  those 
Judges  who  burned  Joan  of  Arc  in  the  market 
place  of  Rouen. 

It  is  well  that  manners  soften  as  the  world 
grows  old.  France  in  the  wild  days  of  her 
revolution  cut  off  the  head  of  Roget  de  Lisle, 
who  had  written  for  her  that  most  inspiring 
of  lyrics,  La  Marseillaise.  We  have  treated 
the  architect  who  created  and  adorned  the 
Capitol  for  us  in  a  milder  and  more  gentle 
fashion.  We  have  only  robbed  him  of  his 
earnings,  blackened  his  fame  and  sent  him  to 
prison  to  meditate  upon  the  vicissitudes  of  for- 
tune and  the  rewards  of  public  service. 

A  poet  has  written  that  time  turns  the  old 
days  to  derision.  The  frettings  and  contro- 
versies which  agitate  the  souls  of  men  disap- 
pear with  the  morrow.  In  the  lapse  of  a  few 
summers  the  dreariest  bank  of  cinder  and  ashes 
becomes  clothed  with  verdure  and  fragrant 
with  flowers.  The  blackest  of  clouds  bear 
with  them  the  waters  that  give  life  to  vegeta-^ 
tion.  It  is  a  comfort  to  know  that  there  are  but' 
103 


few  of  the  efforts  of  men,  even  those  that  orig- 
inate in  their  baser  instincts  and  are  conceived 
in  iniquity,  that  do  not  in  the  end  result  in 
some  benefit.  The  winds  that  blew  for  a 
time  with  such  threat  and  fury  have  sunk  into 
silence  in  the  far  off  wild  woods  of  Broceliande. 
It  may  well  be  that  the  Capitol  on  the  banks 
of  the  Susquehanna,  through  the  coming  cen- 
turies, meeting  the  needs  of  the  Common- 
wealth, and  gratifying  the  pride  of  her  people, 
will  be  the  more  appreciated  because  of  the 
fierceness  with  which  it  has  been  assailed,  and 
that  its  granite  walls  will  glisten  in  the  sun- 
light of  the  future  more  brightly  because  of 
the  murk  and  fog  which  followed  its  con- 
struction. 


104 


REGIONAL  UBflABV  FAQUTY 


^ ! 

A     000  676  704     o 


